yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?
I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
Hmm... I always chose powers/relics/traits when I made the list. Figured they were enhancements to the list I was making, and thus were intrinsic (ie. if my plan was to X, and Warlord Trait Y enhances X, why would I want to re-pick at any time).
Didn't realise that wasn't the norm.
yukishiro1 wrote: Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
It's ok though. Just make sure your army is painted and there's isn't for an easy extra 10 points.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?
I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... I always chose powers/relics/traits when I made the list. Figured they were enhancements to the list I was making, and thus were intrinsic (ie. if my plan was to X, and Warlord Trait Y enhances X, why would I want to re-pick at any time).
Didn't realise that wasn't the norm.
yukishiro1 wrote: Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
It's ok though. Just make sure your army is painted and there's isn't for an easy extra 10 points.
The common one was to use thw strategum to buy extra relics like oh you brought choas I'll spend 1CP for Relic of lost Cadia because get wrecked.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
I would care less if I hadn't been on the receiving end of some of the shenanigans that can come from this where peopme suddenly pick the most broken combo of traits and relics to hard counter your army.
Thats definataly not fun as unlike their traits and relics I can't just up and change my list.
punisher357 wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
Just stating my perspective. *Rant Over*
Plenty factions have access to special abilities that offer saves against Mortal Wounds. Are you new to 40K ? Have you skipped the whole 8th edition ?
Only Marines can drop on Turn 1.
Only Marines can reroll all hits, not just 1's.
Only Marines can block deepstrike units from being able to drop within charge range.
There are plenty of cases where Marines straight up ignore the game just because they can.
Also most of those other factions don't have wargear that juts flat up gives you a save against any MW.
Selfcontrol : Nope. Not new. I just don't have my head buried. Other armies/factions may have a few exceptions and edges, but not all of them rolled into a single package. topaxygouroun beat me to the examples.
Ice_can Bingo. The only people I've met that argue about the advantages Space marines are given are a handful of space marine players. They'll argue until the sun burns out that there's nothing skewed, nothing special.
Like I said, I get that they're the protagonists and I'm fine with them getting some goodies. When it stacks too high, then GW tosses a bunch of stuff on another faction to bring sales up. Before long, it's hard to balance the game, which is a huge feat as it is.
Regardless of all that, I'm excited and optimistic about 9th and I know I'll have a blast! I'm really looking forward to some good games!
Yeah but the upside of that is nobody's ever going to take that stuff any more because it's too much of a risk.
You're going to see a huge homogenization of what traits, relics, powers etc people take, because they're never gonna be able to do something funky and fun for a specific match-up because they have to play it safe and take the most overall useful choice instead. It's just another step towards forcing everyone to run their army the same way every game, and that feels bad and boring.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah but the upside of that is nobody's ever going to take that stuff any more because it's too much of a risk.
You're going to see a huge homogenization of what traits, relics, powers etc people take, because they're never gonna be able to do something funky and fun for a specific match-up because they have to play it safe and take the most overall useful choice instead. It's just another step towards forcing everyone to run their army the same way every game, and that feels bad and boring.
You say balanced and boring I say Take All Comers.
No more I'll skip out on X or Y because I can just take the MW relic if I meet army A, or the Reroll all wounds rlic agaisnt amy B.
Taking away flexibility doesn't make it TAC, it makes it less TAC. It just means you have to gravitate towards the most obviously useful choice and take that every time. It's going to result in more skew, not less. That flexibility was a large part of making lists capable of being more TAC, particularly lists with limited basic options, like say quins. "Every player with this list takes these traits and relics because they're the most universally useful" doesn't produce TAC, it produces skew towards those particular choices, and reduces overall variety in the game as well. You can't experiment any more; you gotta take the safe pick so you don't lose before the game even starts.
The handful of relics and traits that were good against specific factions, if they were a problem, should have just been addressed, rather than everyone losing one of the major tactical parts of the game.
For some armies it's not that much of a big deal, mostly the xenos who have a more limited selection and tend to have to build their lists around those selections. Where as most imperial factions have a wealth of options and if using soup that opens it up even further. Ask an ork who they're going to use as their warlord. If they say it's not going to be the SSAG mek with big killa boss then you can say "Oh so it's going to be killa klaw biker boss then?" Where as with imperium you could have CP regen officer, grudge tank commander, flying smashcaptain, invul biker custodies and more in just the one army all chosen at the start of the game with no need to shuffle the list.
Kind of feels like it levels the playing field a bit right?
Actually, have we even gotten it set in stone that you have to choose your chapter equivalent in the list writing stage? As long as you don't choose relics or characters that lock you into one or another someone could be super cheeky and say, yup this match i'm raven guard, next match i'm ironhands etc etc.
Yes, your sub-faction keyword has to be on the list too.
I don't think it really does level the playing field, not in a meaningful way - I mean, if you just said everyone only gets one HQ choice per army, that'd level the playing field too in a certain sense, but it wouldn't be a good leveling. It just takes away an opportunity to do something fun and different in a match-up where you don't absolutely need the safest choice to not just lose the game.
To take a concrete example: say you have a death jester. In 8th, you could choose what pivotal role you wanted, depending on the army. You'd usually pick the one to suppress overwatch, because in a match-up where overwatch is important, you just lose if you don't have overwatch suppression. But at least you had the option against other lists to try out some of the other options.
In 9th, everyone's just going to take the overwatch suppression no matter what, because if you don't, and you come up against an army that has good overwatch, you just can't do anything. So you're never, ever going to see those other pivotal roles, at least not in a list with only one DJ. That's sad. It's less diversity in the game, and less interesting both to play with and play against.
Or for relics, in 8th, you could pick whether to put the rose on your solitaire, or the sniper rifle on your DJ, or even some of the really wacky options if you wanted to. This wasn't particularly powerful; neither option was such a strong "tech" that it really countered anything, but it made for some much-needed variety in a list that has virtually no variety in its unit choices. But now, you gotta just take one or the other, and stick with it. No more changing things up to keep them fresh, not without redoing your list.
What little variety was in the quins codex was 100% in the warlord traits, relics, and roles. Now that variety is pretty much all gone, unless you're ok with probably just losing certain matchups before the game even starts. It's hard not to see that as a major loss of interest and variety in the game.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
I don't think it is huge - though I do appreciate the issue it creates. Realistically I would have a core set of spells that I always used. Then I occasionally swapped out for Gift and/or Gateway if my opponent had the setup to make it work.
This may also be why smite could be unlimited.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah but the upside of that is nobody's ever going to take that stuff any more because it's too much of a risk.
You're going to see a huge homogenization of what traits, relics, powers etc people take, because they're never gonna be able to do something funky and fun for a specific match-up because they have to play it safe and take the most overall useful choice instead. It's just another step towards forcing everyone to run their army the same way every game, and that feels bad and boring.
I think one hidden benefit of this is collecting information for what people do and do not use and applying that to balance decisions. To use that information may not have changed much anyway. We got to see the first relic sometimes, but no idea what happened after that.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... I always chose powers/relics/traits when I made the list. Figured they were enhancements to the list I was making, and thus were intrinsic (ie. if my plan was to X, and Warlord Trait Y enhances X, why would I want to re-pick at any time).
And here is me, coming back from a version of the game where powers weer rolled of on a random table or drawn from a deck ... and what's a relic? Feels like this game is rather cyclical in random vs. consistency.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
I don't think it is huge - though I do appreciate the issue it creates. Realistically I would have a core set of spells that I always used. Then I occasionally swapped out for Gift and/or Gateway if my opponent had the setup to make it work.
This may also be why smite could be unlimited.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah but the upside of that is nobody's ever going to take that stuff any more because it's too much of a risk.
You're going to see a huge homogenization of what traits, relics, powers etc people take, because they're never gonna be able to do something funky and fun for a specific match-up because they have to play it safe and take the most overall useful choice instead. It's just another step towards forcing everyone to run their army the same way every game, and that feels bad and boring.
I think one hidden benefit of this is collecting information for what people do and do not use and applying that to balance decisions. To use that information may not have changed much anyway. We got to see the first relic sometimes, but no idea what happened after that.
Aye.
It also makes CSM armies with that strategem to spend CP to swap out powers realtime more impactful.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?
I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
I disagree; I feel it pushes listbuilding towards designing for multiple situations and putting out a well-rounded force instead of building around fotm knowing one can simply take some tailored options should they go up against a specific force they could not otherwise handle. Further, it does not help even things out because it goes both ways; the overpowered army can tailor to fight their underpowered opponent and make the margin even worse. I feel this is a positive change and I like it.
So after everything that has been shown off, and god knows else is coming for Marines on top of this whole mess I've decided to chill out on my Templar project for a while and focus on other stuff I like. Namely GSC and Iyanden.
Still getting at least one of those boxes though. Local store is putting in for 45 of the things.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... I always chose powers/relics/traits when I made the list. Figured they were enhancements to the list I was making, and thus were intrinsic (ie. if my plan was to X, and Warlord Trait Y enhances X, why would I want to re-pick at any time).
Didn't realise that wasn't the norm.
For a lot of folks it was. Partly because of past edition inertia, partly because they didn't actually realize they could do that.
It has a very janky feel unless someone started without those kind of restrictions.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... I always chose powers/relics/traits when I made the list. Figured they were enhancements to the list I was making, and thus were intrinsic (ie. if my plan was to X, and Warlord Trait Y enhances X, why would I want to re-pick at any time).
Didn't realise that wasn't the norm.
For a lot of folks it was. Partly because of past edition inertia, partly because they didn't actually realize they could do that.
It has a very janky feel unless someone started without those kind of restrictions.
There is also the issue with quite a few codices not having any options to swap in. For orks and DG all traits, powers and relics are locked in the second you wrote the list, no matter what the enemy brought - everything else was worthless anyways.
And for the codexes that weren't, where that was all the play...it's a big nerf.
Harles are getting nerfed in pretty much every way from 8th to 9th. Fewer CP (gotta take another faction since it's not a complete army), all the nerfs to melee, huge terrain nerfs compared to competitive 8th. And now you gotta spend CP on pivotal roles upfront so again even less CP on top of that since you can't save the odd CP here or there if the match doesn't require it, can't swap them out for fun and you have to choose the ones that don't make you auto-lose the game against certain armies, can't swap relics either, can't swap powers...the faction goes from very limited in 8th to extremely, absurdly limited in 9th. It really ends up feeling line an insult to injury situation.
A super uncustomizable unit list was made up for in 8th with a lot of pre-game customization; that was worked into the balance. Now that's all gone, replaced by nothing except even more nerfs.
I imagine we'll be seeing less Braziers of Eternal Flame among SoB players as a result of this change, unless the meta becomes super-psychic heavy for some reason.
What, you guys used to select relics, warlord traits and psychic powers just before the game ? That's list tailoring. No wonder it was a mess to balance if half the players played ITC house rules and tailored their list on the go lol
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... I always chose powers/relics/traits when I made the list. Figured they were enhancements to the list I was making, and thus were intrinsic (ie. if my plan was to X, and Warlord Trait Y enhances X, why would I want to re-pick at any time).
Didn't realise that wasn't the norm.
Same.
Thirded? LOL, not even a real word. Oh well.
I've faced so many people that show up to the store and don't even have their points figured out so then I gotta sit through the army construction, relic buying, spell taking portion. The 30 minutes spent, that my opponent wastes of my time, is that much more time for a game or a post-game analysis.
yukishiro1 wrote: And for the codexes that weren't, where that was all the play...it's a big nerf.
Harles are getting nerfed in pretty much every way from 8th to 9th. Fewer CP (gotta take another faction since it's not a complete army), all the nerfs to melee, huge terrain nerfs compared to competitive 8th. And now you gotta spend CP on pivotal roles upfront so again even less CP on top of that since you can't save the odd CP here or there if the match doesn't require it, can't swap them out for fun and you have to choose the ones that don't make you auto-lose the game against certain armies, can't swap relics either, can't swap powers...the faction goes from very limited in 8th to extremely, absurdly limited in 9th. It really ends up feeling line an insult to injury situation.
A super uncustomizable unit list was made up for in 8th with a lot of pre-game customization; that was worked into the balance. Now that's all gone, replaced by nothing except even more nerfs.
You do realize that those rules were just released in last month's White Dwarf? There have been next to no competitive events in the meantime, how would you even notice to have lost anything?
The amount of hyperbole you are spouting is getting ridiculous.
Oh, and pretty much every faction loses a few tricks from 9th edition - you know, because PA was written with 9th in mind
Aaranis wrote: What, you guys used to select relics, warlord traits and psychic powers just before the game ? That's list tailoring. No wonder it was a mess to balance if half the players played ITC house rules and tailored their list on the go lol
It wasn't "house rules," it's literally how the game rules worked throughout 8th edition. If you never knew, I guess ignorance was bliss?
You do realize that those rules were just released in last month's White Dwarf? There have been next to no competitive events in the meantime, how would you even notice to have lost anything?
The amount of hyperbole you are spouting is getting ridiculous.
This is a truly terrible argument: "you didn't get to use the stuff that made your faction viable much anyway before it was taken away from you, so who cares that you lost it?"
That makes it worse to have the carpet yanked out from underneath the faction, not better.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yep. Cawl musta outfitted those land raiders with some fancy new treads so they can go straight up vertical walls.
Or all the ork vehicles are straight out of that wonderful Anime Movie Redline. The silly gak their vehicles get up to is fantastic.
One thing I'm super curious about is engagement ranges. If your in engagement range you can't shoot right? And every unit has a tube around them going out 1 inch and up 5. Does that mean if you park a vehicle with a base on the ground floor and that engagement range reaches to the second floor does that stop either unit from shooting even though neither are in the 0.5" range needed to swing in melee?
Actually you strike in melee if you are in engagement range. So you can strike 5" UP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yeah that sucks. Big time. Some items become from marginally useful to too risky as they are useful in some games, useless in others.
Guess I need to buy new canoness to replace the item that just ain't worth it if I have to decide whether to upgrade it to relic or not before I can see what I'm facing.
Aaranis wrote: What, you guys used to select relics, warlord traits and psychic powers just before the game ? That's list tailoring. No wonder it was a mess to balance if half the players played ITC house rules and tailored their list on the go lol
It's literally how the game rules worked throughout 8th edition. If you never knew, I guess ignorance was bliss?
Or maybe some people want more time to play. I have all day, in my house, to make a list. I don't have all day to make the list at the store. I was always annoyed by people who weren't prepared. And yeah, it was annoying because I don't play SM or Tau so my opponents could hard counter my lists pretty easily (I played DG and Daemons before Covid, have Sisters but since Covid lockdown haven't gotten any games in). Now my opponents will have to think about their powers, relics, and traits before they come to the store. Unless it's just him/her and I playing that day I don't have to worry about someone taking anti-marine relics/powers and then seeing my Daemons and switching to anti-infantry relics/powers.
More fair for all involved. But I get it, tournament players have a WAAC mentality even when they choose to play casually. Not judging, just nice to see that narrative get knocked down a few pegs with certain rules changes. Also glad magic-boxes disappeared. Really dumb that a wall that had more holes than Swiss cheese somehow hid units/models who were so visible at times I could see entire TORSOS, not just banner poles.
yukishiro1 wrote: This is a truly terrible argument: "you didn't get to use the stuff that made your faction viable much anyway before it was taken away from you, so who cares that you lost it?"
That makes it worse to have the carpet yanked out from underneath the faction, not better.
You don't even have data to prove it made your army viable, so just stop.
Either all armies should have the ability to tailor their list on the fly or none should have it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hmm... I always chose powers/relics/traits when I made the list. Figured they were enhancements to the list I was making, and thus were intrinsic (ie. if my plan was to X, and Warlord Trait Y enhances X, why would I want to re-pick at any time).
Plenty of stuff that are heavily dependant on matchups. I don't REALLY need melee defence boosting vs tau or frankly I don't need canoness to be even better blender vs tau because she will make mincemeat anyway. And one canoness I like is simple one with just brazier of holy flames upgrade. Cheap to give me rerolls and then either I have once per game d3 mortal wounds on 2+ OR if I'm against psychic heavy army I change brazier to relic version so I don't cause mortal wounds anymore but have instead 18" -1 to cast/deny aura for enemy. Now I have to choose do I want mortal wounds(rarely been of use) or relic(-1CP and 100% useless if opponent has zero psykers. It's only big help vs GK and TS).
Basically that model became just rather dubious usefullness.
I absolutely hated having to wait for my opponent to choose his gak, I think it’s wonderful to have everything written down at the list building stage.
Every single time saving change is good. Too bad 9th has a lot of time wasting changes too...
yukishiro1 wrote: This is a truly terrible argument: "you didn't get to use the stuff that made your faction viable much anyway before it was taken away from you, so who cares that you lost it?"
That makes it worse to have the carpet yanked out from underneath the faction, not better.
You don't even have data to prove it made your army viable, so just stop.
Either all armies should have the ability to tailor their list on the fly or none should have it.
Oh, ok, sorry. So your argument was: "you didn't use get to use the stuff that made your faction better but maybe still terrible before it was taken away from you, so who care that you lost it?" And you think that's a better argument? I think you are illustrating my point for me here without realizing it.
All armies should have complete unit lists too, but they don't. So they tried to make up for it by allowing more ability to customize the army you do have, since it's always going to be the same units no matter what. And then took that way in the new edition that came out a month later.
If you want all armies to be the same that's fine...but quins aren't the same. The whole point of the faction is that they aren't the same. But for that matter, I don't disagree - if your faction doesn't have enough interesting relics to make the option to swap them out worth doing, that's a problem with your faction's codex, and it should be addressed. The solution isn't to nerf everyone else down to your level of miserableness.
It sucks to have your army finally made into something with some variety a month before the end of the edition, then have much of that potential taken away you. If you can't see that, and you think the fact that it was taken away so quickly makes it less bad...I dunno what to tell you, I don't think I can help with that level of lack of ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
yukishiro1 wrote: This is a truly terrible argument: "you didn't get to use the stuff that made your faction viable much anyway before it was taken away from you, so who cares that you lost it?"
That makes it worse to have the carpet yanked out from underneath the faction, not better.
You don't even have data to prove it made your army viable, so just stop.
Either all armies should have the ability to tailor their list on the fly or none should have it.
So because some factions have bad relics/traits whole ability should be removed rather than say improve that faction?
Good logic...NOT!
And btw I have been switching around with traits and relics with orks. It's not as common but useful to them too. So your argument "orks can't switch" is also flat out wrong.
jivardi wrote: But I get it, tournament players have a WAAC mentality even when they choose to play casually.
The funny thing is this is the complete opposite of what this does. Removing the ability to swap stuff means that you cannot choose fluffier, more interesting relics and warlord traits, unless you don't mind just losing some match-ups before they even start. In the old system, you could only take the power-gamer choices when it was necessary to counter a list that you couldn't beat otherwise, but if you didn't come up against such a list, you could switch things up and do fun stuff instead.
Now you're locked into the power-gaming choices because otherwise you just lose if you come up against a list you needed those choices to have a chance against.
The effect of this is to encourage everybody take the most powerful choices every game, even if they'd rather only do it in the 10% of games where they really have to...the exact opposite of what you seem to want to avoid.
Kinetochore wrote: Is it just me or is 9th just an attempt to prevent douche bags doing "gamey" BS? .
if so GW has done a bad Job and added more gamy stuff than removed anyhing
a lot of people always say 40k is not meant for competitive games, and 9th is an attempt to prevent the competitive guys from moving over to other games
While I get what your saying I have to say due to the horrific inconsistencies in the approaches GW has taken to designing certain factions this is a "problem" for some Codex's and really changes nothing for others.
Some armies have essentially default relics/traits required yo make certaib units function hoever you can't take the relic without taking the bad version to fit the relic or trait too, so your committed to the relic or trait the minuit that unit is in your list.
Also i have to say it also made certain subfactions redundant entirely as people would just spall all the counter WLT & Relics.
E.G Tau Sept over watch on 5+, only ever got to use it against a guard player everyone else made it redundant by spamming ignore overwatch relics and WLT's and strategums so I can't change my trait but you get free reign to make my army wide bonus have 0 impact on the game. Felt really great for balance.
Aaranis wrote: What, you guys used to select relics, warlord traits and psychic powers just before the game ? That's list tailoring. No wonder it was a mess to balance if half the players played ITC house rules and tailored their list on the go lol
We always had everything chosen before you showed up at the club - wasted time otherwise.
tneva82 wrote: So because some factions have bad relics/traits whole ability should be removed rather than say improve that faction?
Good logic...NOT!
So, to rephrase your argument, you think it's okay that some armies have an unfair advantage over all others for at least two years, since we know that is how long it takes GW to update all armies, correct?
And btw I have been switching around with traits and relics with orks. It's not as common but useful to them too. So your argument "orks can't switch" is also flat out wrong.
Oh, please don't try to tell me that switching out big killa boss against all-infantry army does anything remotely as noticable as bringing an anti-infantry or anti-psyker relic. Because that's bullgak.
yukishiro1 wrote: This is a truly terrible argument: "you didn't get to use the stuff that made your faction viable much anyway before it was taken away from you, so who cares that you lost it?"
That makes it worse to have the carpet yanked out from underneath the faction, not better.
You don't even have data to prove it made your army viable, so just stop.
Either all armies should have the ability to tailor their list on the fly or none should have it.
Oh, ok, sorry. So your argument was: "you didn't use get to use the stuff that made your faction better but maybe still terrible before it was taken away from you, so who care that you lost it?" And you think that's a better argument? I think you are illustrating my point for me here without realizing it.
All armies should have complete unit lists too, but they don't. So they tried to make up for it by allowing more ability to customize the army you do have, since it's always going to be the same units no matter what. And then took that way in the new edition that came out a month later.
If you want all armies to be the same that's fine...but quins aren't the same. The whole point of the faction is that they aren't the same. But for that matter, I don't disagree - if your faction doesn't have enough interesting relics to make the option to swap them out worth doing, that's a problem with your faction's codex, and it should be addressed. The solution isn't to nerf everyone else down to your level of miserableness.
It sucks to have your army finally made into something with some variety a month before the end of the edition, then have much of that potential taken away you. If you can't see that, and you think the fact that it was taken away so quickly makes it less bad...I dunno what to tell you, I don't think I can help with that level of lack of ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
Nothing was taken away, all your options are still there. You just lost the ability to screw over an opponent after seeing his list, while he doesn't have the option. Not to mention that harlequins should never have been a codex to begin with. If you chose Codex: One Datasheet as your army, having limited options is part of the deal. Of course, assuming that you aren't just using Harlequins as strawman to have a point at all.
My DG got their psychic awakening within a month of 9th, and were the least supported army until then. GW released bits of 9th which already invalidated one entire plague company, the detachment bonus and multiple stratagems before it even hit the shelves. Not a single one allows any pre-game tailoring, by the way. Meanwhile, you are whining about how you have to decide which powerful rule to pick for your characters, because you can't possible win if you pick the wrong role or bring both.
The only thing you lost was the ability to exploit a loophole that was clearly not intended by GW.
Not to mention that harlequins should never have been a codex to begin with.
Harlequins were one of the first Codexes and have always had a great variety of unique units, weapons - many of which are no longer there.
Its not the same as the various Marine sub factions where increasingly outlandish and flanderised untis were created to give some faint justification for their super speical status and vast amount of resources lavished upn them at the expense of all other non Marine factions.
My DG got their codex within a month of 9th, and were the least supported army until then
Do you mean 8th?
Looks at the range of Sisters models at that point and laughs at your assertion.
Not to mention that harlequins should never have been a codex to begin with.
Harlequins were one of the first Codexes and have always had a great variety of unique units, weapons - many of which are no longer there.
Harlequins were a single unit entry in the eldar codices until 7th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To elaborate: Harlequins should either have been evolved into a full-blown codex or remained part of craftworld/drukhari. Their codex is a joke compared even to small factions like DG, GK or custodes. They are basically assassins/inquisitors minus any help for joining their parent faction.
So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
yeah can we please stop with the "dur that army shouldn't exist" BS. it's childish and insulting
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Well as a T.Sons player, I would really prefer it if we were not a separate codex. All we got by switching to own codex was the Scarab Occult Terminators and the exalted sorcerers which nobody plays, then some bs imports from AoS that nobody wants, and the rest of the codex is generic gak from the CSM codex that we have no synergy with and nobody plays (generic battle tanks) and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
Meanwhile we are missing out on all kinds of special or heavy weapons, Discolords, smash lords, havocs, obliterators, possessed, basically everything that makes CSM (kind of) work.
Not all subfactions are ready to become their own codex, and it's better to aknowledge it rather than grab the subfaction flag and wave it angrily around.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Well as a T.Sons player, I would really prefer it if we were not a separate codex. All we got by switching to own codex was the Scarab Occult Terminators and the exalted sorcerers which nobody plays, then some bs imports from AoS that nobody wants, and the rest of the codex is generic gak from the CSM codex that we have no synergy with and nobody plays (generic battle tanks) and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
Meanwhile we are missing out on all kinds of special or heavy weapons, Discolords, smash lords, havocs, obliterators, possessed, basically everything that makes CSM (kind of) work.
Not all subfactions are ready to become their own codex, and it's better to aknowledge it rather than grab the subfaction flag and wave it angrily around.
Not to nitpick but thousand sons shouldn't have obliterators or possessed, it's a bit hard to mutate a pile of dust. Fluffwise they were also all psychically active to some degree, I don't fancy having to balance psychic discolords.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Maybe not Single Squad but I wouldn't mind if DG were absorbed back into the CSM codex. Then maybe I could run Death Guard Oblits and whatnot. oooooh Death Guard Heldrake. That we be so frellin' cool.
I do wonder though if we'll see some consolidation of factions in 9th in one form or another. GW already did that with quite a few factions in AoS(Orruks, Ogors, CoS, Skaven, LoN, Gloomspite) so it wouldn't be unprecedented for GW to recombine factions.
Kinda feels(a hunch) like we might be entering the "supplemental" edition where all the sub-factions would be supplements to a standard codex like the SM one.
topaxygouroun i wrote: and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
This is what annoys me with Death Guard. All the Nurgle Daemons don't have Death Guard type which means I'll have to run soup to run them which now even costs extra because of the new detachment system. Not like DG was a powerhouse codex.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
The master of argument misrepresentation and strawmen strikes again! I never said that harlequins shouldn't exist. They just shouldn't exist in the way they are now, with two options to solve that problem. One is giving them a proper codex instead of that joke they have now. The other is giving them all the options of their parent faction.
DG have gotten a fully fledged out codex, and harlequins are what? A troops unit, a biker unit, a vehicle and a cast of support characters. Your average christmas battleforce has more unit variety than the entire harlequin codex.
If you actively decide to play an army that has no options, you don't get to complain about it afterwards. Splinter factions like this have the same problem in every game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, most importantly, Thousand Sons shouldn't have Ahriman (and DG shouldn't have Typhus).
They are both their respective Primarchs Enemy No. 1, kinda split off doing their own renegade thing and/or hang out with the Black Legion.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Well as a T.Sons player, I would really prefer it if we were not a separate codex. All we got by switching to own codex was the Scarab Occult Terminators and the exalted sorcerers which nobody plays, then some bs imports from AoS that nobody wants, and the rest of the codex is generic gak from the CSM codex that we have no synergy with and nobody plays (generic battle tanks) and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
Meanwhile we are missing out on all kinds of special or heavy weapons, Discolords, smash lords, havocs, obliterators, possessed, basically everything that makes CSM (kind of) work.
Not all subfactions are ready to become their own codex, and it's better to aknowledge it rather than grab the subfaction flag and wave it angrily around.
Not to nitpick but thousand sons shouldn't have obliterators or possessed, it's a bit hard to mutate a pile of dust. Fluffwise they were also all psychically active to some degree, I don't fancy having to balance psychic discolords.
Yet we do have Chaos Spawns and helbrutes and whatever the freak Mutalith Vortex Beast is. And even with no mutated astartes, could still have bikers, raptors, havocs, chosen, dark apostles, master of possession, a million stuff. And not everything has to be psychic just because it says T.Sons on top. The Predators and Vindicators we can use at the moment are not psychic. Sure could do with a normal discolord or two if you ask me.
topaxygouroun i wrote: and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
This is what annoys me with Death Guard. All the Nurgle Daemons don't have Death Guard type which means I'll have to run soup to run them which now even costs extra because of the new detachment system. Not like DG was a powerhouse codex.
You can summon them in quite efficiently when playing The Wretched though.
topaxygouroun i wrote: and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
This is what annoys me with Death Guard. All the Nurgle Daemons don't have Death Guard type which means I'll have to run soup to run them which now even costs extra because of the new detachment system. Not like DG was a powerhouse codex.
Or summon them, though 2CP for a patrol isn't crazy expensive.
topaxygouroun i wrote: and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
This is what annoys me with Death Guard. All the Nurgle Daemons don't have Death Guard type which means I'll have to run soup to run them which now even costs extra because of the new detachment system. Not like DG was a powerhouse codex.
Or summon them, though 2CP for a patrol isn't crazy expensive.
We can already summon them anyways, and we can also summon all other kinds of god specific daemons that are not present in the codex. There was literally no reason to put them in the codex (and even do half assed job at that, horrors and flamers are in the entry, exalted flamers and heralds are not), oither than fill up a mandatory minimum of units, because the bottom truth is that some armies just don't have enough to be an autonomous codex.
That gak is true about Sons, DG, Harlequins, Custodes and probably more subfactions. There's a reason these armies never top tournaments, and it's that they are just not enough.
EDIT: And we're now entering an edition where armies are punished for souping, and suddenly my 12 units codex has to compete one on one with Astartes 70 units codex.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Well as a T.Sons player, I would really prefer it if we were not a separate codex. All we got by switching to own codex was the Scarab Occult Terminators and the exalted sorcerers which nobody plays, then some bs imports from AoS that nobody wants, and the rest of the codex is generic gak from the CSM codex that we have no synergy with and nobody plays (generic battle tanks) and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
Meanwhile we are missing out on all kinds of special or heavy weapons, Discolords, smash lords, havocs, obliterators, possessed, basically everything that makes CSM (kind of) work.
Not all subfactions are ready to become their own codex, and it's better to aknowledge it rather than grab the subfaction flag and wave it angrily around.
Not to nitpick but thousand sons shouldn't have obliterators or possessed, it's a bit hard to mutate a pile of dust. Fluffwise they were also all psychically active to some degree, I don't fancy having to balance psychic discolords.
Yet we do have Chaos Spawns and helbrutes and whatever the freak Mutalith Vortex Beast is. And even with no mutated astartes, could still have bikers, raptors, havocs, chosen, dark apostles, master of possession, a million stuff. And not everything has to be psychic just because it says T.Sons on top. The Predators and Vindicators we can use at the moment are not psychic. Sure could do with a normal discolord or two if you ask me.
Spawns are when the changes overcome sorcerers or a failed ascension to daemonhood, they shouldn't have helbrutes but should have dreanoughts imo. the vortex beast is exactly that - a native beast to the planet of sorcerers. The entire fluff for thousand sons as a legion is that they're all psychic or made of dust. The vehicles aren't driven by sorcerers - not psychic, there's a living person on a disco lord = psyker.
Hand waving stuff away because you want rules from other books doesn't fit the factions narrative, it's the inherent danger of being split out. If they never received their own book, you would have had 1 psychic discipline to pick from total and until psychic awakening had 1 warlord trait, relic and strat like the other legions.
I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.
I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.
Eldarsif wrote: I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.
I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.
They began doing it with daemonkin, I'm not 100% sure why they went back on themselves. It would also end this asking for generic CSM units in the specialist books.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Well as a T.Sons player, I would really prefer it if we were not a separate codex. All we got by switching to own codex was the Scarab Occult Terminators and the exalted sorcerers which nobody plays, then some bs imports from AoS that nobody wants, and the rest of the codex is generic gak from the CSM codex that we have no synergy with and nobody plays (generic battle tanks) and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
Meanwhile we are missing out on all kinds of special or heavy weapons, Discolords, smash lords, havocs, obliterators, possessed, basically everything that makes CSM (kind of) work.
Not all subfactions are ready to become their own codex, and it's better to aknowledge it rather than grab the subfaction flag and wave it angrily around.
Not to nitpick but thousand sons shouldn't have obliterators or possessed, it's a bit hard to mutate a pile of dust. Fluffwise they were also all psychically active to some degree, I don't fancy having to balance psychic discolords.
Yet we do have Chaos Spawns and helbrutes and whatever the freak Mutalith Vortex Beast is. And even with no mutated astartes, could still have bikers, raptors, havocs, chosen, dark apostles, master of possession, a million stuff. And not everything has to be psychic just because it says T.Sons on top. The Predators and Vindicators we can use at the moment are not psychic. Sure could do with a normal discolord or two if you ask me.
Spawns are when the changes overcome sorcerers or a failed ascension to daemonhood, they shouldn't have helbrutes but should have dreanoughts imo. the vortex beast is exactly that - a native beast to the planet of sorcerers. The entire fluff for thousand sons as a legion is that they're all psychic or made of dust. The vehicles aren't driven by sorcerers - not psychic, there's a living person on a disco lord = psyker.
Hand waving stuff away because you want rules from other books doesn't fit the factions narrative, it's the inherent danger of being split out. If they never received their own book, you would have had 1 psychic discipline to pick from total and until psychic awakening had 1 warlord trait, relic and strat like the other legions.
At least they could show some competency when doing it. Right now, Scarabs are literally point for point 2 rubrics stacked together. Exalted sorcerers are worse than Ahriman/DPs and more expensive than sorcerers, with no idea wtf to do on the table. Magnus is DoA and since 9th we can't even field him properly (either pay 3CP and lose all T.Sons benefits, or play in SupCom and lose all Cult benefits from PA), and that's where the flavor of the codex ends. Unless you want to tell me that tzaangors were inherently part of the Thousand Sons lore, maybe they were roaming around the fields of Prospero eating grass and everything as goats, then the Rubric transformed them into...
No. They half assed the codex. You can't argue "Hand waving stuff away because you want rules from other books doesn't fit the factions narrative" when I suddenly have goatmen and when MORE THAN HALF the entries in the codex come from the CSM codex anyways.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Well as a T.Sons player, I would really prefer it if we were not a separate codex. All we got by switching to own codex was the Scarab Occult Terminators and the exalted sorcerers which nobody plays, then some bs imports from AoS that nobody wants, and the rest of the codex is generic gak from the CSM codex that we have no synergy with and nobody plays (generic battle tanks) and some entries on chaos daemon units that we can't even field because they don't have the appropriate keywords, and they are only there to meet the minimum number of pages.
Meanwhile we are missing out on all kinds of special or heavy weapons, Discolords, smash lords, havocs, obliterators, possessed, basically everything that makes CSM (kind of) work.
Not all subfactions are ready to become their own codex, and it's better to aknowledge it rather than grab the subfaction flag and wave it angrily around.
Not to nitpick but thousand sons shouldn't have obliterators or possessed, it's a bit hard to mutate a pile of dust. Fluffwise they were also all psychically active to some degree, I don't fancy having to balance psychic discolords.
Yet we do have Chaos Spawns and helbrutes and whatever the freak Mutalith Vortex Beast is. And even with no mutated astartes, could still have bikers, raptors, havocs, chosen, dark apostles, master of possession, a million stuff. And not everything has to be psychic just because it says T.Sons on top. The Predators and Vindicators we can use at the moment are not psychic. Sure could do with a normal discolord or two if you ask me.
Spawns are when the changes overcome sorcerers or a failed ascension to daemonhood, they shouldn't have helbrutes but should have dreanoughts imo. the vortex beast is exactly that - a native beast to the planet of sorcerers. The entire fluff for thousand sons as a legion is that they're all psychic or made of dust. The vehicles aren't driven by sorcerers - not psychic, there's a living person on a disco lord = psyker.
Hand waving stuff away because you want rules from other books doesn't fit the factions narrative, it's the inherent danger of being split out. If they never received their own book, you would have had 1 psychic discipline to pick from total and until psychic awakening had 1 warlord trait, relic and strat like the other legions.
At least they could show some competency when doing it. Right now, Scarabs are literally point for point 2 rubrics stacked together. Exalted sorcerers are worse than Ahriman/DPs and more expensive than sorcerers, with no idea wtf to do on the table. Magnus is DoA and since 9th we can't even field him properly (either pay 3CP and lose all T.Sons benefits, or play in SupCom and lose all Cult benefits from PA), and that's where the flavor of the codex ends. Unless you want to tell me that tzaangors were inherently part of the Thousand Sons lore, maybe they were roaming around the fields of Prospero eating grass and everything as goats, then the Rubric transformed them into...
No. They half assed the codex. You can't argue "Hand waving stuff away because you want rules from other books doesn't fit the factions narrative" when I suddenly have goatmen and when MORE THAN HALF the entries in the codex come from the CSM codex anyways.
Ofc they half assed the codex, they didn't have capacity to make enough new kits clearly and worked with what they could. The tzaangors fluff wise are the native inhabitants of the planet of sorcerers. I'm not a thousand sons player - you should be telling me this stuff not the other way round. But you're confusing rules issues (including magnus) vs design scope (not having enough new units). End of the story is people need to stop going "I wanted the really good psychic phase but I also want all the toys for that codex" and embrace that they have their own codex with expanded rules, units and strats that wouldn't exist otherwise, they'll get fleshed out in the future.
Never the less, to drag it back on topic, the new CP costs for other detachments mean a patrol to get some chaos marine disco lords in a price possibly worth paying if you wanted to do that.
I wonder how the Shadow Assignment stratagem Assassins get works with the new Roster rules.
Do you need to mark it down on your Roster since it's used "before the battle begins"? It doesn't upgrade a unit, but is it treated the same? If so, when do you select the Assassin you're swapping to? Do you have to write that on your list, defeating the point of the stratagem in the first place?
I'm assuming no and it just works as current, but I foresee a bunch of confusion over it if the Day 1 FaQ doesn't clarify it.
At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)
I didn't did that because I always chose my psychic powers to benefit me (I mean playing custodes, Tau, Sisters of battle and dark angels is not like I have many choices), but some people did it.
Eldarsif wrote: I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.
I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.
Completely agree. In my opinion theres only two ways to organize Chaos and have it make sense: You have a Hordes of Chaos ala 6th in fantasy or you have a book for each god, both mortal and daemon, like Age of Sigmar. Then you can even add a special mixed subfaction like they did with the Bel'akor one for AoS.
Galas wrote: At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)
I didn't did that because I always chose my psychic powers to benefit me (I mean playing custodes, Tau, Sisters of battle and dark angels is not like I have many choices), but some people did it.
Eldarsif wrote: I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.
I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.
Completely agree. In my opinion theres only two ways to organize Chaos and have it make sense: You have a Hordes of Chaos ala 6th in fantasy or you have a book for each god, both mortal and daemon, like Age of Sigmar. Then you can even add a special mixed subfaction like they did with the Bel'akor one for AoS.
Bring back Khorne Daemonkin - most fun army I've ever played
Eldarsif wrote: I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.
I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.
Completely agree. In my opinion theres only two ways to organize Chaos and have it make sense: You have a Hordes of Chaos ala 6th in fantasy or you have a book for each god, both mortal and daemon, like Age of Sigmar. Then you can even add a special mixed subfaction like they did with the Bel'akor one for AoS.
Exactly. I am just surprised that they found a really good solution for AoS but are somehow unable to find it again in 40k. Plus that solution also helps GW to sell models as the army range is larger and more diverse.
They were able to re-design AoS from the ground up. Of course there is a learning curve to that, but compared to previous rules-sets they have generated, they learned extremely well.
With 40k they haven’t been able to summon the courage to do the required reset on some of the dreadful inherited lore and collection assemblages. Chaos in particular suffers from confused mish-mash of compelling and dreadful dreadful lore in this part – no-one really knows what it is or what the codex is supposed to represent and the whole faction needs a basic reset on what it actually is. AoS has executed this brilliantly and created 4 distinct and compelling factions comprising chaos. 40k is a absolute mess where half the ‘chaos’ faction aren’t even chaotics.
Galas wrote: At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)
.
Many of the relics and traits are specific as well so if selecting psychics is fine because it's specific so should relics and traits.
Galas wrote: At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)
.
Many of the relics and traits are specific as well so if selecting psychics is fine because it's specific so should relics and traits.
I believe they are worded differently. The relics you could chose here are the ones you pay CP for because you technically pay the CP on the game, just like you do to upgrade some units with pre-game strats.
One thing I think we might to reconsider/get clarified for 9th is what counts as being in cover.
Watching that 9th ed battle by tabletop titans and seeing a Riptide touch the outside of a building and immediately be able to see through it rubbed me the wrong way, and doesn't seem to be how the rule is intended.
I think obscuring terrain will work a lot better if you have to actually get inside the building to get the benefit. Maybe base has to be more than 50% within?
Not to mention that harlequins should never have been a codex to begin with.
Harlequins were one of the first Codexes and have always had a great variety of unique units, weapons - many of which are no longer there.
Harlequins were a single unit entry in the eldar codices until 7th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To elaborate: Harlequins should either have been evolved into a full-blown codex or remained part of craftworld/drukhari. Their codex is a joke compared even to small factions like DG, GK or custodes. They are basically assassins/inquisitors minus any help for joining their parent faction.
Ahh now I understand and agree - your initial statement seemed to say something very different.
One thing I think we might to reconsider/get clarified for 9th is what counts as being in cover.
Watching that 9th ed battle by tabletop titans and seeing a Riptide touch the outside of a building and immediately be able to see through it rubbed me the wrong way, and doesn't seem to be how the rule is intended.
I think obscuring terrain will work a lot better if you have to actually get inside the building to get the benefit. Maybe base has to be more than 50% within?
Yeah the terrain stuff had me scratching my head watching that batrep. There's going to be quite a few clarifications/faq points day one I can imagine, but as a student of (GW) history I can say there always is. That's why I tend to reserve harsh criticisms until I have a few games under my belt and have given the guys at GW to notice the things they didn't think through.
Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.
IanVanCheese wrote: One thing I think we might to reconsider/get clarified for 9th is what counts as being in cover.
Watching that 9th ed battle by tabletop titans and seeing a Riptide touch the outside of a building and immediately be able to see through it rubbed me the wrong way, and doesn't seem to be how the rule is intended.
I think obscuring terrain will work a lot better if you have to actually get inside the building to get the benefit. Maybe base has to be more than 50% within?
Not actually sure how much use that battle report is now as the Imperial Fists list is using the wrong models for his secondary objective it should be the contemptors
The tau list can NOT have 2 of the same signature systen.
AduroT wrote: Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.
Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.
AduroT wrote: Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.
Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.
Not really I think you are assigning intent beyond what GW intended. Also if GW wants to know how big a building etc is in footprint to make in/on clearer how about they add some floors or bases to their terrain.
AduroT wrote: Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.
Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.
Not really I think you are assigning intent beyond what GW intended. Also if GW wants to know how big a building etc is in footprint to make in/on clearer how about they add some floors or bases to their terrain.
I mean the intent is clearly to break up firing lanes. It does that, but it does it better if models actually have to get into the terrain instead of putting a toe in.
AduroT wrote: Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.
Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.
I mean you both highlight the inherent problem that not all models are created, or modeled, equally, so there's going to have to be some sort of all-or-nothing concept for them to benefit. The hope would be that it isn't super exploitable or silly, but I think it'll probably end up that way short of GW adding keywords to models instead of terrain. Like unless they say only Beasts, Infantry, & Swarms gain cover if touching and everything else has to have its base wholly within, you'll always have Riptides tip-toeing through the ruins.
I may be inferring what GW is trying to write, but I equate in terrain as the distinction `within` and `fully within`.
As Tabletop Titans were playtesters, I do not think they played the terrain incorrectly. They did advise they were goin to update their terrain for the exact reason you all noticed; planet bowling ball once the Riptides touched the central ruin.
Sarigar wrote: I may be inferring what GW is trying to write, but I equate in terrain as the distinction `within` and `fully within`.
As Tabletop Titans were playtesters, I do not think they played the terrain incorrectly. They did advise they were goin to update their terrain for the exact reason you all noticed; planet bowling ball once the Riptides touched the central ruin.
Yeah, it may just be that we need to change the kind of terrain we're putting out there. A quick fix to that massive ruin they had would be to split it in two for the purposes of rules, so being in the first half doesn't let you shoot all the way through. Normally you wouldn't need this, but that ruin they had covered like half the table lol.
Toe in or toe out is irrelevant. There’s always going to be an arbitrary line that seems absurd. Sure, you think it’s dumb that if a Riptide puts a toe in a ruin it can see thru it. But is it any less dumb than a Riptide rendered blind because a single toe is outside of the ruin? In my opinion touching terrain is the easiest way to designate a model is effected by it.
AduroT wrote: Toe in or toe out is irrelevant. There’s always going to be an arbitrary line that seems absurd. Sure, you think it’s dumb that if a Riptide puts a toe in a ruin it can see thru it. But is it any less dumb than a Riptide rendered blind because a single toe is outside of the ruin? In my opinion touching terrain is the easiest way to designate a model is effected by it.
I prefer fully in, it forces you to commit more to being in the terrain, if you want the benefits of being in there. Touching terrain counting mkaes decisions easier, takes away gameplay opportunities since it makes a lot of terrain largely useless as cover.
We'll see though, like I said we may just need to start breaking up terrain into more, smaller bits of building that each count as their own ruins, rather than having full building outline count as one single ruin.
I didn't have time to no read any of the pots since the core rules were revealed. But I just wanted to vent, why on earth are they taking a dump on melee in 40k? Unlimited overwatch still exists? No changes to falling back? A ton of new restrictions to charging units and melee, especially assault units with fly and harlequins?
As of now me and my buddy I usually play with are sticking with 8th edition. 9th edition is only a step backwards. Not a single step forward. The terrain rules are clunky and unnecessarily add contention to the game just like these new coherency rules. Also for no reason they through in a nerf to all melee armies which needed help.
Tetsu0 wrote: I didn't have time to no read any of the pots since the core rules were revealed. But I just wanted to vent, why on earth are they taking a dump on melee in 40k? Unlimited overwatch still exists? No changes to falling back? A ton of new restrictions to charging units and melee, especially assault units with fly and harlequins?
As of now me and my buddy I usually play with are sticking with 8th edition. 9th edition is only a step backwards. Not a single step forward. The terrain rules are clunky and unnecessarily add contention to the game just like these new coherency rules. Also for no reason they through in a nerf to all melee armies which needed help.
Overwatch is a once per phase strat, it's been toned down heavily, flyers can't shoot if they fall back, you have a strat to deal mortal wounds if someone falls back out of combat (though it's not great), there's more LoS blocking, negative hit modifiers and cover in general and the board is shorter so melee can get in easier.
I'm fairly sure it's too early to rule out melee, especially when you've clearly missed base rules.
Eh. I think the permissive option is better for a general rule, since by default gw is assuming terrain doesnt have a base.
In a game where you could be using cardboard boxes or you could be using plastic terrain kits, youre always going to need the rule to be "define what "within" means for your terrain."
If defining within as "on the outside base that goes around your ruin" is immersion breaking, then dont define that as within.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?
I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
Bullcrap. In any other edition that was considered list tailoring and cheating and I am glad it was removed. There were only a couple factions that exploited that which only added to those factions dominance. The obvious elephant in the room is Marines, with more psychic powers, warlord traits and relics then all the xenos combined.
Tabletop titans are some of the shallowest guys, that essentially give you the amazing advice of.... Telling you to play netlists They are parrots that just play the exact same way most forums echo. It's not the worst advice, but it's certainly not innovative of deep either, so I'll gladly ignore their hot takes.
I mean, GW ported over the ITC shopping cart for objectives so there really should be no excuse for bad mismatches. If you have a dud psychic power it looks like you can always smite multiple times, which BTW I don't think was unintentional. Originally they restricted smite by one cast per caster in the 8th rules and later patched in the +1 to each subsequent attempt. I don't think you need both. They may need to address T-Sons and grey knights, but they can always nerf those two specifically. You can also use the psychic objectives alternatively if you think your power is a dud.
As for WLT and relics, maybe your armies general shouldn't have mutable characteristics and relic gear between every engagement lol. It always felt worse if I am playing DE or Necrons and I have no psychic powers, and my relics are always the same because I have about 1 useful one per doctrine and I play a marine player who gets to tailor half his freebee power ups just to rub it in when he was already the more dominant faction.
I'd wager it takes better critical thinking and finds the better strategist when they actually need to adapt to the fog of war rather then list tailor with perfect information every damned time.
That we know. Seeing they mentioned ultramarines along tau wouldn't surprise if ultra's gain same ability. Pretty safe bet tau won't be only one.
In other news tabletop tactics had br with new points. 2k of sisters seems to have been 1700 under 8th. Well kills theory of some that codex points were for 9th(lol).
For some weird reason condemptor boltgun went to 5 pts. Rf1, s4, ap0, dam d3 vs psykers is sooooo op... hoping guy who gave notes from video(behind paywall for me) was joking. 5 pts for that is joke. Even at 1 pts it's never done anything even vs tsons. I just have couple as they look good and tend to run couple points short so fun cool looking additions.
Either they count as bolters or i rip weapon off if true. No way i pay 5 pts for those.
the_scotsman wrote: Eh. I think the permissive option is better for a general rule, since by default gw is assuming terrain doesnt have a base.
In a game where you could be using cardboard boxes or you could be using plastic terrain kits, youre always going to need the rule to be "define what "within" means for your terrain."
If defining within as "on the outside base that goes around your ruin" is immersion breaking, then dont define that as within.
I'm more thinking for game balance than immersion. For something like a Riptide, it's a big change between tapping the edge of a building and being on the inside of the walls.
I think that might the best way to do it. You can be partially in, but "in" means part of your base/model needs to be inside the walls of a ruin. That means big base models like Riptides would need to commit to entering terrain.
That we know. Seeing they mentioned ultramarines along tau wouldn't surprise if ultra's gain same ability. Pretty safe bet tau won't be only one.
In other news tabletop tactics had br with new points. 2k of sisters seems to have been 1700 under 8th. Well kills theory of some that codex points were for 9th(lol).
For some weird reason condemptor boltgun went to 5 pts. Rf1, s4, ap0, dam d3 vs psykers is sooooo op... hoping guy who gave notes from video(behind paywall for me) was joking. 5 pts for that is joke. Even at 1 pts it's never done anything even vs tsons. I just have couple as they look good and tend to run couple points short so fun cool looking additions.
Either they count as bolters or i rip weapon off if true. No way i pay 5 pts for those.
Ultras have that strat that lets them basically greater good. So I imagine they still gotta use the overwatch strat, but they can stack it with their own strat to fire with multiple units.
Eldarsif wrote: I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.
I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.
Completely agree. In my opinion theres only two ways to organize Chaos and have it make sense: You have a Hordes of Chaos ala 6th in fantasy or you have a book for each god, both mortal and daemon, like Age of Sigmar. Then you can even add a special mixed subfaction like they did with the Bel'akor one for AoS.
Exactly. I am just surprised that they found a really good solution for AoS but are somehow unable to find it again in 40k. Plus that solution also helps GW to sell models as the army range is larger and more diverse.
You guys do know that the various Chaos god keywords are Faction Keywords, right? You could technically build a TZEENTCH army that uses Thousand Sons, Daemons, and CSM units; you just wouldn't have access to the detachments rules (most notably Objective Secured, but I think we could live with the loss of the Tzeentch Locus).
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Death Guard shouldn't be an actual codex, nor should the snowflakey Angel Marines and Thousand Sons.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I woukdn't call it thin skinned with some of the crap the community has pulled in the past with attacking writers and the like.
Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
When they did some of the FAQs to marines, etc... they talked about why they did the changes. That was great. They should to it more. In a honest, ruler-design way, and not in a marketing speech one, I mean.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
When they did some of the FAQs to marines, etc... they talked about why they did the changes. That was great. They should to it more. In a honest, ruler-design way, and not in a marketing speech one, I mean.
Agreed. It lets the players know the logic behind the changes, even if we don't agree with them which smooths a lot of the knee jerk reactions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those of you Dark Angels fans looking to order Indomitus on the 11th, we can confirm that the Outriders will be able to gain the ‘Ravenwing’ keyword and the Bladeguard Veterans are fully inducted members of the Deathwing.
IanVanCheese wrote: One thing I think we might to reconsider/get clarified for 9th is what counts as being in cover.
Watching that 9th ed battle by tabletop titans and seeing a Riptide touch the outside of a building and immediately be able to see through it rubbed me the wrong way, and doesn't seem to be how the rule is intended.
I think obscuring terrain will work a lot better if you have to actually get inside the building to get the benefit. Maybe base has to be more than 50% within?
It's definitely how it's intended. It's also stupid, but it's definitely what's intended based on the way the rules are written.
9th edition terrain is a huge bait and switch. They claim it makes drawing LOS harder, but it actually makes it far easier than it was in 8th edition in any competitive format.
9th is a shooting gallery edition at present, and the only way to make it not a shooting gallery is to physically block up all your gaps on your terrain (or layer multiple pieces of separate terrain right next to each other)...the exact thing the terrain rules were supposed to prevent.
When your carefully-selected promoters end their first game of 9th edition with the overall conclusion: "we have to board up our terrain to make this work," you know you done goofed.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Hyperbole much?
While I agree some people get overly vitriolic (that twitch chat, good grief!), they are still just words, not getting stabbed. Explaining their rules making decisions would go a long way to reducing such vitriol by making most of us understand why they made the decisions they did. Admittedly there would still be some that would become vitriolic and angry, but some people just can't be reasonable. Hiding won't fix that.
Not explaining their decisions just gives ammunition to those who think they are made arbitrarily.
I'd argue the downgrade of LoS blocking only compared to ITC terrain rules, something most of the community has never played with. And even if it is a downgrade it's only for stuff inside of the terrain.
I think on the case of the entire table Obscuring does a better job of breaking up lines of sight than ITC's rule does. Yes, it doesn't help you avoid being a target if you're -inside- the terrain, but honestly screw magic boxes and that whole mess.
It sounds like you don't like the ITC rules, and that's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But it's simply wrong to say obscuring does a better job of blocking LOS than ITC's rules. It simply doesn't. Literally the only thing it blocks LOS better for is very tall models with less than 18W. Meanwhile, for everything else, losing LOS blocking if either you or the thing shooting you touches the terrain is a massive, massive decrease.
If you don't like the terrain rules every major competitive format in 40k used in 8th that's fine, and you should be very happy, since 9th makes it far easier to shoot stuff than those rules did.
yukishiro1 wrote: It sounds like you don't like the ITC rules, and that's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But it's simply wrong to say obscuring does a better job of blocking LOS than ITC's rules. It simply doesn't. Literally the only thing it blocks LOS better for is very tall models with less than 18W. Meanwhile, for everything else, losing LOS blocking if either you or the thing shooting you touches the terrain is a massive, massive decrease.
If you don't like the terrain rules every major competitive format in 40k used in 8th that's fine, and you should be very happy, since 9th makes it far easier to shoot stuff than those rules did.
I'm indifferent to most ITC rules. I just don't like magic boxes.
That and I don't agree with the pedestal people insist on putting ITC or any of the competetive rulesets on. Yeah, they were functional, but they also made some of the problems with the edition worse.
I want to get games in with this new ruleset before I make any sweeping claims though because things on paper don't always match things on the table.
I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them. The first floor of ruins blocking LOS was universally embraced by pretty much every serious competitive format, and there's a reason for that: it worked. It created tactical games where models could survive on the table instead of immediately being blasted off. And, when GW didn't screw it up by releasing overpowered stuff like the new Space Marines, it resulted in by far the best balanced competitive meta the game has seen - right before SM 2.0 came out, the game was very balanced competitively between factions, for one of the first times in its history.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time, we can handle it" and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after a bunch of testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins to avoid planet bowling ball." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time," and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after our testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While I agree with this, it's a relatively simple fix. Just change what counts as being in terrain to models wholly within for Obscuring terrain. Then at the very least you have to enter the building to see through it, which is what makes sense.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time," and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after our testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While I agree with this, it's a relatively simple fix. Just change what counts as being in terrain to models wholly within for Obscuring terrain. Then at the very least you have to enter the building to see through it, which is what makes sense.
That would improve things a bit, but I don't think it's a fix, except to the extent that it completely prevents some categories of stuff from being able to do so, because tanks etc probably can't enter the building completely. And I'm not sure it's a great fix to just rule out a bunch of stuff from being able to do it completely, while letting other stuff continue to do it with impunity.
I mean it would make infantry good again I guess. But it doesn't seem like a complete fix.
The obvious solution was having all the borders of an obscuring terrain piece block LOS to and from unless you or the thing you're shooting is on the edge (say within 2" of it, whether inside or outside). In other words, you can shoot into a building from just outside it, but not from halfway across the table, and you can shoot out of a building from inside it if you're at the edge on the direction you're shooting to, but not if you're in the middle or the far edge. And anything that can shoot out can be shot at. But precisely because they didn't choose this even though it was an obvious solution, I think it means they made a deliberate choice to severely town down LOS blocking in 9th vis a vis the competitive standard in 8th, while claiming they were doing the opposite. So you have to think they wanted this.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
The master of argument misrepresentation and strawmen strikes again! I never said that harlequins shouldn't exist. They just shouldn't exist in the way they are now, with two options to solve that problem. One is giving them a proper codex instead of that joke they have now. The other is giving them all the options of their parent faction.
DG have gotten a fully fledged out codex, and harlequins are what? A troops unit, a biker unit, a vehicle and a cast of support characters. Your average christmas battleforce has more unit variety than the entire harlequin codex.
If you actively decide to play an army that has no options, you don't get to complain about it afterwards. Splinter factions like this have the same problem in every game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, most importantly, Thousand Sons shouldn't have Ahriman (and DG shouldn't have Typhus).
They are both their respective Primarchs Enemy No. 1, kinda split off doing their own renegade thing and/or hang out with the Black Legion.
You might want to go read some novels on Typhus.
Yeah, people who want to play harlequinns are just all morons right? Why don't they play a real army. Like space marines.
Jesus some people.
"Man I wish my army had more options and wasn't getting nerfed"
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them. The first floor of ruins blocking LOS was universally embraced by pretty much every serious competitive format, and there's a reason for that: it worked. It created tactical games where models could survive on the table instead of immediately being blasted off. And, when GW didn't screw it up by releasing overpowered stuff like the new Space Marines, it resulted in by far the best balanced competitive meta the game has seen - right before SM 2.0 came out, the game was very balanced competitively between factions, for one of the first times in its history.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time, we can handle it" and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after a bunch of testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins to avoid planet bowling ball." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While i agree that 8th was getting better towards the end before GW dropped the Marines on the meta, I would have to point out that we spent most of the edition dealing with some wacky meta nonsense too.
Not to mention all the indirect fire spam because they became way better than their points costs suggested when over half the table was effectively invisible.
I'm not trying to say GW's rules are perfect, far from it, I'm just saying that I'm always hesitant to start making sweeping claims without actively playing the game.
That said, I've got a few army projects I'll be working on, mainly for Crusade, so between GSC, Iyanden Craftworlds and Black Templars I'll be running a wide range of stuff this edition so as the meta inevitably changes and shifts and we see the game change and shift I should always be able to get some fun games in.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time," and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after our testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While I agree with this, it's a relatively simple fix. Just change what counts as being in terrain to models wholly within for Obscuring terrain. Then at the very least you have to enter the building to see through it, which is what makes sense.
That would improve things a bit, but I don't think it's a fix, except to the extent that it completely prevents some categories of stuff from being able to do so, because tanks etc probably can't enter the building completely. And I'm not sure it's a great fix to just rule out a bunch of stuff from being able to do it completely, while letting other stuff continue to do it with impunity.
I mean it would make infantry good again I guess. But it doesn't seem like a complete fix.
The obvious solution was having all the borders of an obscuring terrain piece block LOS to and from unless you or the thing you're shooting is on the edge (say within 2" of it, whether inside or outside). In other words, you can shoot into a building from just outside it, but not from halfway across the table, and you can shoot out of a building from inside it if you're at the edge on the direction you're shooting to, but not if you're in the middle or the far edge. And anything that can shoot out can be shot at. But precisely because they didn't choose this even though it was an obvious solution, I think it means they made a deliberate choice to severely town down LOS blocking in 9th vis a vis the competitive standard in 8th, while claiming they were doing the opposite. So you have to think they wanted this.
It's not perfect, but I think it fixes the majority of issues that arise with the least changes to the current rules as written. And yes, it hampers big stuff more than infantry, but that's very much the point. Like the example they gave on WarCom showing a knight on the opposite side on a building not being able to see the infantry on the otherside - all the knight has to do is touch the building with it's base and it can smoke them with ease.
I'm really hoping this is clarified to be how it works.
Funny how the Dark Angels faction focus states that they can mitigate losses to overcharged plasma with litanies......err, no sir, can't do that anymore, the +1 to hit will not help you there. get back to your playtesting, lol
Yeah, people who want to play harlequinns are just all morons right? Why don't they play a real army. Like space marines.
Jesus some people.
"Man I wish my army had more options and wasn't getting nerfed"
"What a loser, play a real army"
The funniest bit is he said in the same breath "and you can't have more options to adjust your force before the battle - even though that's literally what GW gave you in the PA book just came out - because that isn't fair because my codex with 5x as many choices doesn't have that, all armies should be the same that way and if I can't have it you can't either."
bullyboy wrote: Funny how the Dark Angels faction focus states that they can mitigate losses to overcharged plasma with litanies......err, no sir, can't do that anymore, the +1 to hit will not help you there. get back to your playtesting, lol
I mean technically they can, until the datasheets get changed or FAQ'd. So far only the new Assault Intercessor plasma pistol has the new wording.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Hyperbole much?
While I agree some people get overly vitriolic (that twitch chat, good grief!), they are still just words, not getting stabbed. Explaining their rules making decisions would go a long way to reducing such vitriol by making most of us understand why they made the decisions they did. Admittedly there would still be some that would become vitriolic and angry, but some people just can't be reasonable. Hiding won't fix that.
Not explaining their decisions just gives ammunition to those who think they are made arbitrarily.
I'm pretty sure the sort of moron who would send death threats would probably do it regardless, but I do think a lot of us would really be interested to hear the thoughts on why they did specific things. I would love to hear their response to their chosen playtesters concluding their first video with "well guys we're going to have to board up our windows on our terrain to make this not planet bowling ball edition," for example.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Hyperbole much?
While I agree some people get overly vitriolic (that twitch chat, good grief!), they are still just words, not getting stabbed. Explaining their rules making decisions would go a long way to reducing such vitriol by making most of us understand why they made the decisions they did. Admittedly there would still be some that would become vitriolic and angry, but some people just can't be reasonable. Hiding won't fix that.
Not explaining their decisions just gives ammunition to those who think they are made arbitrarily.
rules writers used to get regular death threats
Really? Ok, that explains why they might be hesitant to talk. Good grief, it's toy soldiers. I hope the people making those threats were thoroughly prosecuted.
Maybe that's why they don't put author credits in the books either.
Thanks again, Jesse! How are you planning to hunt the Fallen in the new edition? For those of you Dark Angels fans looking to order Indomitus on the 11th, we can confirm that the Outriders will be able to gain the ‘Ravenwing’ keyword and the Bladeguard Veterans are fully inducted members of the Deathwing
from 4chan:
no idea on the order of release, but marines (which is a massive book 200+pgs) has all chapters in it, even the specials like BA, SW, DA. then Orks is finished as well I know
It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
no idea on the order of release, but marines (which is a massive book 200+pgs) has all chapters in it, even the specials like BA, SW, DA. then Orks is finished as well I know
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
I'm always suspicious of anything from 4chan as well, but they would obviously just sell the non codex chapters supplements.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
Trust me when I say I was appalled at how the Supplements were handled.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
Trust me when I say I was appalled at how the Supplements were handled.
Well get ready for more of them, because if this rumour is true, I'd bet we'll be seeing the same treatment for the Legions, at least the undivided ones.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
I'm always suspicious of anything from 4chan as well, but they would obviously just sell the non codex chapters supplements.
said the be the same guy who leaked the rules but yes take it with a grain of salt
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
And they can still keep all the supplements if they want to anyway.
I think a unified marine codex is super likely, with deathwatch included too obviously. It's the only thing that makes their "deathwatch codex is coming soon" make any sense, there's no way it would be one of the first releases otherwise.
And I always thought it was just because they didn't want to give the authors credit.
it all started with Matt "Mad" Ward being author of the Daemon Codex and after that GW stopped writing who is to blame into the books
Not to defence or justify the death threats but the guy didnt exactlly help the situation with the way he has handled the comunity over the years.
I believe that was a part of what contributed to the rules team essentially withdrawing as apparently he had/has a tallent for bringing out the worst in people.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
Yet we do have Chaos Spawns and helbrutes and whatever the freak Mutalith Vortex Beast is. And even with no mutated astartes, could still have bikers, raptors, havocs, chosen, dark apostles, master of possession, a million stuff. And not everything has to be psychic just because it says T.Sons on top. The Predators and Vindicators we can use at the moment are not psychic. Sure could do with a normal discolord or two if you ask me.
No thanks. I don't want to be CSM, but with magic. I rather enjoy the identity of the army and prefer not to ham-fist more units in. People complain about the AoS models (Tzaangors have literally been a Tzeentch thing forever), but turn around and demand non-psychic lords? Good grief.
Also the daemon entries are for summoning. You can share the Tzeentch keyword if you really want to lose the trait.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
The amount of stuff those books are about to kick into legends is biblical, though can't say I'll miss Marine players Abusing Chaplain Dreadnaughts.
Howver DKK and such going bye bye is very much not an improvement to the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
Trust me when I say I was appalled at how the Supplements were handled.
Well get ready for more of them, because if this rumour is true, I'd bet we'll be seeing the same treatment for the Legions, at least the undivided ones.
I really hope not. The undivided Chaos Legions are the best (big Iron Warriors and Night Lords fan here)......and having to carry yet another book to a game.......no thanks. Can't we just go back to the days when we had our respective codex (with respective Chapter/Legion/Regiment/Subfaction rules part of it) and our rulebook?
Honestly I wouldn't even mind if they just put out pay for updates to the new digital codexes they are promising. Say if you have the digital Chaos Space Marine codex and a new "Psychic Awakening" type expansion comes out with new rules for CSM, IG, Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Tau. If you could just go and upgrade your codex for 5 bucks with JUST the new CSM stuff, or say 2 bucks if you want an individual subfaction I wouldn't have a problem with that. I have a larger problem paying 40 bucks for a book that I have to lug around where only two pages are relevant to me.
I was thinking of hoping back in to 40k with 9th, but I think I may just stick to other games if GW decides to keep the "Never ending supplements" marketing style going.
Also GW if you are going to make Custodes an Army, can make an actual Traitor Guard/Chaos Mortals book? They have kind of have been missing for a while.....especially with how FW handled Renegades and Heretics.
no idea on the order of release, but marines (which is a massive book 200+pgs) has all chapters in it, even the specials like BA, SW, DA. then Orks is finished as well I know
both together make kind of sense
Uhh. If GW invalidates BOTH the supplements and the main codex in under a year...they better be doing something nice. Especially considering the loss of 4 months of that time.
no idea on the order of release, but marines (which is a massive book 200+pgs) has all chapters in it, even the specials like BA, SW, DA. then Orks is finished as well I know
both together make kind of sense
Uhh. If GW invalidates BOTH the supplements and the main codex in under a year...they better be doing something nice. Especially considering the loss of 4 months of that time.
Therion had actually posted the rumor first a week or so ago, but anyways: The Marines book isn't "overriding" the supplements, from the impression given off. It's just replacing the core book. BA, SW, DA, BT are supposed to get similar.
If I remembered the exact post right. It was made in the Necron General Discussion thread down in 40k General. Here's the post. I did misremember part of it, but the insistence of BA, SW, etc was the important part with regards to supplements.
jivardi wrote: But I get it, tournament players have a WAAC mentality even when they choose to play casually.
The funny thing is this is the complete opposite of what this does. Removing the ability to swap stuff means that you cannot choose fluffier, more interesting relics and warlord traits, unless you don't mind just losing some match-ups before they even start. In the old system, you could only take the power-gamer choices when it was necessary to counter a list that you couldn't beat otherwise, but if you didn't come up against such a list, you could switch things up and do fun stuff instead.
Now you're locked into the power-gaming choices because otherwise you just lose if you come up against a list you needed those choices to have a chance against.
The effect of this is to encourage everybody take the most powerful choices every game, even if they'd rather only do it in the 10% of games where they really have to...the exact opposite of what you seem to want to avoid.
It'd be a great argument if your opponent knew ahead of time what you were bringing but remember, EVERYONE has to build a 100% complete list first. So if you take a relic that is good at killing infantry and you end up facing a knight army you have wasted a relic. If your opponent(s) take relics and abilites that help against vehicles and MC's and you show up with Tyranids with lots of little guys that persons relics/abilities are wasted.
As much as I liked 8th I missed 3rd, 4th, and 5th. No stratagems, no relics. Your list was 100% complete before you entered a tournament or some other sanctioned event and guess what? It allowed me and my opponents to get started playing right away and sometimes you had bad luck against certain armies because you couldn't tailor last minute after seeing your opponents army.
If your army needs a certain relic or psychic powers to win than try a new list. 9th edition is going to force people to make new lists. I'm willing to bet most gamers on Dakka have more than 2k points so it's not like you need to spend additional $ to play the game and if you do, tough. I don't get free gasoline for my vehicle, I don't get free MtG cards if I want to change up my deck.
At the tournaments my LGS holds the only thing we are allowed to swap out are psychic powers. Relics, traits, etc have to be chosen before you are even allowed to enter. We show the owner, who is also the TO, our lists. If we don't have a relic chosen cuz we spaced out in list building, too bad. Whatever relics, traits, etc are on the list we are stuck with.
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Maybe not Single Squad but I wouldn't mind if DG were absorbed back into the CSM codex. Then maybe I could run Death Guard Oblits and whatnot. oooooh Death Guard Heldrake. That we be so frellin' cool.
I do wonder though if we'll see some consolidation of factions in 9th in one form or another. GW already did that with quite a few factions in AoS(Orruks, Ogors, CoS, Skaven, LoN, Gloomspite) so it wouldn't be unprecedented for GW to recombine factions.
Kinda feels(a hunch) like we might be entering the "supplemental" edition where all the sub-factions would be supplements to a standard codex like the SM one.
If DG and TS should go back into CSM than DA, BA, SW, IH, IF, CF, etc should all be rolled into one codex.
Black Legion represents the generic CSM. The 4 "god" legions in fluff don't behave or fight battles like Black Legion. The "4" SHOULD have separate codeciies and I'm hoping like hell the EC and WE get a codex in 9th.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?
I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.
It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.
Bullcrap. In any other edition that was considered list tailoring and cheating and I am glad it was removed. There were only a couple factions that exploited that which only added to those factions dominance. The obvious elephant in the room is Marines, with more psychic powers, warlord traits and relics then all the xenos combined.
Tabletop titans are some of the shallowest guys, that essentially give you the amazing advice of.... Telling you to play netlists They are parrots that just play the exact same way most forums echo. It's not the worst advice, but it's certainly not innovative of deep either, so I'll gladly ignore their hot takes.
I mean, GW ported over the ITC shopping cart for objectives so there really should be no excuse for bad mismatches. If you have a dud psychic power it looks like you can always smite multiple times, which BTW I don't think was unintentional. Originally they restricted smite by one cast per caster in the 8th rules and later patched in the +1 to each subsequent attempt. I don't think you need both. They may need to address T-Sons and grey knights, but they can always nerf those two specifically. You can also use the psychic objectives alternatively if you think your power is a dud.
As for WLT and relics, maybe your armies general shouldn't have mutable characteristics and relic gear between every engagement lol. It always felt worse if I am playing DE or Necrons and I have no psychic powers, and my relics are always the same because I have about 1 useful one per doctrine and I play a marine player who gets to tailor half his freebee power ups just to rub it in when he was already the more dominant faction.
I'd wager it takes better critical thinking and finds the better strategist when they actually need to adapt to the fog of war rather then list tailor with perfect information every damned time.
Brian said in the Tau faction focus that he had multiple Tau lists written and having playtestet them all they all perform nearly equally. He has a Farsight list, an infantry heavy list, a broadside heavy list, vehicle heavy list so I don't see any indication he is promoting net lists. He's a tournament player and so I suppose like all tournament players he had his opinion on what worked best in 8th. All the tournament players did. I never once heard a LVO or GT participant say "don't copy my list, it sucks. Build your own." LOL
That we know. Seeing they mentioned ultramarines along tau wouldn't surprise if ultra's gain same ability. Pretty safe bet tau won't be only one.
In other news tabletop tactics had br with new points. 2k of sisters seems to have been 1700 under 8th. Well kills theory of some that codex points were for 9th(lol).
For some weird reason condemptor boltgun went to 5 pts. Rf1, s4, ap0, dam d3 vs psykers is sooooo op... hoping guy who gave notes from video(behind paywall for me) was joking. 5 pts for that is joke. Even at 1 pts it's never done anything even vs tsons. I just have couple as they look good and tend to run couple points short so fun cool looking additions.
Either they count as bolters or i rip weapon off if true. No way i pay 5 pts for those.
Who's been saying the Sisters POINTS were for 9th edition? That's a really far out theory if that's the case. It's been assumed since the Sisters codex was the most recent that the "codex" rules/abilities/traits were probably written with 9th in mind. That's likely but the Sisters ponits costs being 9th compatible is not something i've seen and I've been lurking Dakka for the past year or so. LOL
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
Has FW released any major book since Alan Bligh passed? I get the feeling that he was so central to FW that it died with him. Such a shame.
So last I clicked this thread was over 10 pages ago just as the price point for £120 was being thrown about from that leaked release list.
Without going through all the pages of what I assume is rules arguing for the most part,
Is there confirmation on that price?
Danny76 wrote: So last I clicked this thread was over 10 pages ago just as the price point for £120 was being thrown about from that leaked release list.
Without going through all the pages of what I assume is rules arguing for the most part,
Is there confirmation on that price?
Don't know about in pounds, but it's $200 in the US.
Danny76 wrote: So last I clicked this thread was over 10 pages ago just as the price point for £120 was being thrown about from that leaked release list.
Without going through all the pages of what I assume is rules arguing for the most part,
Is there confirmation on that price?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
Trust me when I say I was appalled at how the Supplements were handled.
Well get ready for more of them, because if this rumour is true, I'd bet we'll be seeing the same treatment for the Legions, at least the undivided ones.
I really hope not. The undivided Chaos Legions are the best (big Iron Warriors and Night Lords fan here)......and having to carry yet another book to a game.......no thanks. Can't we just go back to the days when we had our respective codex (with respective Chapter/Legion/Regiment/Subfaction rules part of it) and our rulebook?
Honestly I wouldn't even mind if they just put out pay for updates to the new digital codexes they are promising. Say if you have the digital Chaos Space Marine codex and a new "Psychic Awakening" type expansion comes out with new rules for CSM, IG, Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Tau. If you could just go and upgrade your codex for 5 bucks with JUST the new CSM stuff, or say 2 bucks if you want an individual subfaction I wouldn't have a problem with that. I have a larger problem paying 40 bucks for a book that I have to lug around where only two pages are relevant to me.
I was thinking of hoping back in to 40k with 9th, but I think I may just stick to other games if GW decides to keep the "Never ending supplements" marketing style going.
Also GW if you are going to make Custodes an Army, can make an actual Traitor Guard/Chaos Mortals book? They have kind of have been missing for a while.....especially with how FW handled Renegades and Heretics.
I like this idea. Wasn't thrilled to have to pay $40 for four pages of rules for my Night Lords (and a name generator, of course). I'm hoping they fix R&H in the new fw books.
jivardi wrote:If DG and TS should go back into CSM than DA, BA, SW, IH, IF, CF, etc should all be rolled into one codex.
Black Legion represents the generic CSM. The 4 "god" legions in fluff don't behave or fight battles like Black Legion. The "4" SHOULD have separate codeciies and I'm hoping like hell the EC and WE get a codex in 9th.
The other four Legions don't "behave or fight battles like Black Legion" either.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
GW is likely only going to start removing Finecast stuff this early, and then slowly retire other kits as time goes on. There is no rush to retire all the old kits right this second.
And the supplements at least put all the Marines on the same baseline codex that can get updated more frequently while the supplements stay in rotation for longer without needing to be changed. It's a good approach for cleaning up the pile of Marine books into an easier to balance core and is a good way for them to expand other armies in the future as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: DDK will be fine, they mentioned working on their rules in one of the streams. It's everything else I'm worried about.
I want Renegades and Heretics back. Not the crap ones they gave us in the index, but the options we had from Vraks. It was literally the most flavorful ruleset GW has released.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
GW is likely only going to start removing Finecast stuff this early, and then slowly retire other kits as time goes on. There is no rush to retire all the old kits right this second..
this is not what I said
the first step in removing Old-Marines is the remove Old-Marine Codex books, and the best timeframe to do it is an edition change as they just don't get a new one
kits will not be removed but just priced in a way so that the Primaris one is the cheaper alternative and than GW can remove them because no one wants them and no one cares any more
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
GW is likely only going to start removing Finecast stuff this early, and then slowly retire other kits as time goes on. There is no rush to retire all the old kits right this second..
this is not what I said
the first step in removing Old-Marines is the remove Old-Marine Codex books, and the best timeframe to do it is an edition change as they just don't get a new one
kits will not be removed but just priced in a way so that the Primaris one is the cheaper alternative and than GW can remove them because no one wants them and no one cares any more
What "Old Marine books"? They're in the same books as the Primaris.
Gadzilla666 wrote: DDK will be fine, they mentioned working on their rules in one of the streams. It's everything else I'm worried about.
I want Renegades and Heretics back. Not the crap ones they gave us in the index, but the options we had from Vraks. It was literally the most flavorful ruleset GW has released.
Preaching to the choir. Though it isn't Vraks we need back, its IA 13. I want my Demagogue Devotions back, and veterans, with the option to upgrade them to grenadiers again, and carapace armour.
I do wonder what the future holds for FW making things for 40k. They seem entirely focused on boxed games and HH stuff these days. When was the last dedicated 40k Model? Was it the big giant floaty space marine tank thing?
We'll find out pretty soon, when the new rules come out. It should be pretty easy to tell whether they are token rules for a range they plan on slowly discontinuing, or whether they're something to breathe new life into the range and keep it going.
General Kroll wrote: I do wonder what the future holds for FW making things for 40k. They seem entirely focused on boxed games and HH stuff these days. When was the last dedicated 40k Model? Was it the big giant floaty space marine tank thing?
I actually liked the floaty tank thing, but I wish it was a transport too because it looks like it has space.
The Phazer wrote:I'd just be content for GW to let FW bring the R&H models back. Even as a limited run or something. They were a fantastic range.
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
General Kroll wrote:I do wonder what the future holds for FW making things for 40k. They seem entirely focused on boxed games and HH stuff these days. When was the last dedicated 40k Model? Was it the big giant floaty space marine tank thing?
jivardi wrote: Who's been saying the Sisters POINTS were for 9th edition? That's a really far out theory if that's the case. It's been assumed since the Sisters codex was the most recent that the "codex" rules/abilities/traits were probably written with 9th in mind. That's likely but the Sisters ponits costs being 9th compatible is not something i've seen and I've been lurking Dakka for the past year or so. LOL
The argent shroud warlord trait sure makes more sense in 9th. But GW used this kind of rules way earlier than the Sisters dex I think.
The Phazer wrote:I'd just be content for GW to let FW bring the R&H models back. Even as a limited run or something. They were a fantastic range.
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
General Kroll wrote:I do wonder what the future holds for FW making things for 40k. They seem entirely focused on boxed games and HH stuff these days. When was the last dedicated 40k Model? Was it the big giant floaty space marine tank thing?
It was either that or the big Necron construct.
You’re right it was the big Necron thing. There was also the big fanfare about the 40k character series, which seems to have come to nought.
Tetsu0 wrote: I didn't have time to no read any of the pots since the core rules were revealed. But I just wanted to vent, why on earth are they taking a dump on melee in 40k? Unlimited overwatch still exists? No changes to falling back? A ton of new restrictions to charging units and melee, especially assault units with fly and harlequins?
As of now me and my buddy I usually play with are sticking with 8th edition. 9th edition is only a step backwards. Not a single step forward. The terrain rules are clunky and unnecessarily add contention to the game just like these new coherency rules. Also for no reason they through in a nerf to all melee armies which needed help.
Overwatch is a once per phase strat, it's been toned down heavily, flyers can't shoot if they fall back, you have a strat to deal mortal wounds if someone falls back out of combat (though it's not great), there's more LoS blocking, negative hit modifiers and cover in general and the board is shorter so melee can get in easier.
I'm fairly sure it's too early to rule out melee, especially when you've clearly missed base rules.
I've read the rules. Overwatch is in the main rules and says certain units will have the rules for overwatch and there is no restriction in the core rules for how many times or units can overwatch a turn. There's nowhere it explicitly states that overwatch is now just a strategem, or refer to page 28 or whatever for the fire overwatch strategem.
Because of the new terrain rules and the bonus you can get to overwatch too makes it even harder to make a single critical charge. Especially when this is combined with the super restrictive coherency and shorter engagement distance. There's also minus 2 to charge distance for charging through certain terrain.
Don't even bring up that terrible mw fall back strategem that benefits non-melee units the most and the only units that would ever want to use it are going to be horde chaff units. Elite melee units and monstrous creatures don't have their melee prowess accounted for in this strat and it will be useless for them. It doesn't make sense lore or game wise.
The board being shorter is a double edged sword, which also means more firepower or rapid fire in range of your units. It is going to be a lot harder to make a charge or even move across the battlefield in 9th edition mainly because of new terrain rules, and not being able to reroll one die on a charge. Which means more melee units left out to dry.
There's still no real detriment to just falling back from combat. Especially now that multi-charges are prohibitively risky, spreading out during combat to maximize models in engagement is risky and severely limited, also the engagement range has been considerably lessened.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
The R&H rules from IA 13 in 7th allowed you to build an army that would fit either of those descriptions. You could have traitor pdf, mutant rabble, veterans, even better veterans (grenadiers), hereteks, and more. The rule set allowed for loads of customization. Probably the most since csm 3.5. It was great. And they replaced it with the mess that we got in the fw Indexes.
Tetsu0 wrote: I didn't have time to no read any of the pots since the core rules were revealed. But I just wanted to vent, why on earth are they taking a dump on melee in 40k? Unlimited overwatch still exists? No changes to falling back? A ton of new restrictions to charging units and melee, especially assault units with fly and harlequins?
As of now me and my buddy I usually play with are sticking with 8th edition. 9th edition is only a step backwards. Not a single step forward. The terrain rules are clunky and unnecessarily add contention to the game just like these new coherency rules. Also for no reason they through in a nerf to all melee armies which needed help.
Overwatch is a once per phase strat, it's been toned down heavily, flyers can't shoot if they fall back, you have a strat to deal mortal wounds if someone falls back out of combat (though it's not great), there's more LoS blocking, negative hit modifiers and cover in general and the board is shorter so melee can get in easier.
I'm fairly sure it's too early to rule out melee, especially when you've clearly missed base rules.
I've read the rules. Overwatch is in the main rules and says certain units will have the rules for overwatch and there is no restriction in the core rules for how many times or units can overwatch a turn. There's nowhere it explicitly states that overwatch is now just a strategem, refer to page 28 or whatever for the fire overwatch strategem.
The Core Rules don’t need to tell you how many times you’re allowed to fire Overwatch. They describe how it works.
Unless a unit has Overwatch innately as an ability or uses the Stratagem, tell me what permits it to fire Overwatch?
See? It’s all covered without preventing future design changes.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Did someone stab them?
Nope, but they got death threats from the community.
So tell me, if your attempts to communicate resulted in death threats would you continue to try and communicate or would you decide not to take the risk for your family? If your genuine attempts to do your job well resulted in people saying you are a horrible person who maliciously was trying to ruin their lives would you want to continue to communicate?
Seriously, it’s kinda sad how angry people get, I lost 6k repairing my car after hitting a deer and I am less upset at the deer that these people get over having to actually paint their minis. People are still complaining about Matt Ward and it’s been what? 10 years.
I am super hype for 9th edition, just the force org changes means mono faction will be more viable. I just hope they resolve the storm shield issues quickly as well as give my Deathwatch some love.
Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
Meh, maybe as Ab Humans to mix into other factions but if we get a Space Dwarves faction I want them more like KO from Fantasy: greedy mercenaries who harness the warp through technology instead of being psykers.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
Yeah, with such contrasting turns it was hard to see how armies fair in 9th for sure. I was hoping it would highlight GSC and melee were good, but I guess things will become clear once everything is out and people start playing
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
GW won't fail to capitalize on that.
What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
Leth wrote: Seriously, it’s kinda sad how angry people get, I lost 6k repairing my car after hitting a deer and I am less upset at the deer that these people get over having to actually paint their minis. People are still complaining about Matt Ward and it’s been what? 10 years.
Yes, but the deer is more upset at you that these peoples get over having to actually paint their minis. You killed it, after all.
Prepare to be haunted by angry deer ghost!!!
Gadzilla666 wrote: DDK will be fine, they mentioned working on their rules in one of the streams. It's everything else I'm worried about.
I want Renegades and Heretics back. Not the crap ones they gave us in the index, but the options we had from Vraks. It was literally the most flavorful ruleset GW has released.
Preaching to the choir. Though it isn't Vraks we need back, its IA 13. I want my Demagogue Devotions back, and veterans, with the option to upgrade them to grenadiers again, and carapace armour.
And don't forget a vox that actually works.
Imagines old vox and platoon structures.....
Feth me how did they EVER release those Indexes...
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
From what I heard the FW team had an extremely limited amount of time to produce the 8th edition indexes. Add to that the passing of Alan Bligh right before 8th, and I'm guessing the studio was pretty messed up and under intense workload. It's a real shame, as I think the FW Guard index is the worst book that I have ever bought from GW. I'm a huge FW fan and really hope to see a good set of rules from them this time.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
Given the last year if Marines are still where they are or somehow even more out of line I don't know how I can reconcile their ability to access their game.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I got bored and put in all the leaked Space Marine point values into excel and calculated their cost change as a percent of their original value. For units with different load-out options like tanks, I included different load-out options and did the price comparison for those options instead of just the model so we could see how weapon point cost changes impacted the units overall costs. For Units where all models are the same (aggressors, hellblasters, etc.) I just calculated the difference for 1 model. For the devastator squad, the values are for the sum of four marines, the sergeant, and four of the listed heavy weapons to give the total cost of the squad.
...
All of these costs for HQ are just for the base models as we don't have the prices of melee weapons. For all other force organization sections, melee weapons prices are assumed to be the same as before.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
That's not really comforting.
Welcome to every edition change ever, only GW is actively trying to fix the cracks.
Thank god that indirect fire seems to have finally got the points nerf it deserved in 8th...though in 9th, with LOS being so much easier to draw compared to competitive 8th, I almost wonder if it went too far. Oh well. I still won't mourn it even if it means we never see a thunderfire cannon again.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I got bored and put in all the leaked Space Marine point values into excel and calculated their cost change as a percent of their original value. For units with different load-out options like tanks, I included different load-out options and did the price comparison for those options instead of just the model so we could see how weapon point cost changes impacted the units overall costs. For Units where all models are the same (aggressors, hellblasters, etc.) I just calculated the difference for 1 model. For the devastator squad, the values are for the sum of four marines, the sergeant, and four of the listed heavy weapons to give the total cost of the squad.
...
All of these costs for HQ are just for the base models as we don't have the prices of melee weapons. For all other force organization sections, melee weapons prices are assumed to be the same as before.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
That's not really comforting.
Welcome to every edition change ever, only GW is actively trying to fix the cracks.
Why the massive nerf to heavy bolters? And why did tacs go up so much more compared to intercessors as a %? This doesn't bode well for csm. Don't like the increase on contemptors either, that'll carry on to csm as well. Terminators came out pretty much unscathed, as long as cc weapons don't get hit.
Guess your theory about intercessors paying for their weapons is out the door Zion, now they're all free. Danged executioner didn't get hurt much though . At least TFCs got a massive hit, about time.
Oh well, now we just have to wait and see what happens to everyone else.
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
GW won't fail to capitalize on that.
What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
You're thinking Kirby days.
Battlefleet Gothic and Total War are phenomenal. Mordheim was great as is Vermintide.
CSM just got a revamp...all four GDs are out. A bunch of new nurgle and Slaanesh. Some nurgle, too.
Orks got excellent buggies. Necrons are getting a massive sweep right now.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I got bored and put in all the leaked Space Marine point values into excel and calculated their cost change as a percent of their original value. For units with different load-out options like tanks, I included different load-out options and did the price comparison for those options instead of just the model so we could see how weapon point cost changes impacted the units overall costs. For Units where all models are the same (aggressors, hellblasters, etc.) I just calculated the difference for 1 model. For the devastator squad, the values are for the sum of four marines, the sergeant, and four of the listed heavy weapons to give the total cost of the squad.
...
All of these costs for HQ are just for the base models as we don't have the prices of melee weapons. For all other force organization sections, melee weapons prices are assumed to be the same as before.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
That's not really comforting.
Welcome to every edition change ever, only GW is actively trying to fix the cracks.
I did that exact same thing; it averages out to about 10% bump. Really look at that list, it's kinda scary. Sure, Assault Centurions, TFCs, Sniper Elims, Invictors, the Impulsor, scouts, and Whirlwinds got hit by 10% or more (a lot more for TFCs and WWs)but the VAST majority of units saw less than a 20% increase.
Compare that to a mediocre sister list that saw a 20% average bump even including multiples of the worst units in the codex (Immolators, Geminae superia) and it becomes a little nerve-wracking. Assuming no one at GW has a particular hate-boner for sisters, the average unit per unit increase is around 20%.
Basically it looks like most marine characters got a functional 10%+ buff, intercessors got a 10% buff, hellblasters got a 20% buff, inceptors got a 45% buff, Grav Centurions went up barely 1%, Repulsor Executioner 8% buff, Stormtalon 15%, Storm raven 15%, Suppresors 15%. All units that were either competitive (intercessors, grav centurions) or were still considered good units (Suppressors, Repulsor Executioner) saw boosts as part of an army that was already pretty far ahead of the curve.
The points adjustment for space marines seems to have been "let's nerf the most popular choices hard (except intercessors, can't nerf those) and for everything else, let's give them a comparative points cut and see how it goes, worst comes to worst we'll shift what's overpowered and sell a bunch of stuff that wasn't selling before and have to nerf it a couple months later."
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
GW won't fail to capitalize on that.
What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
You're thinking Kirby days.
Battlefleet Gothic and Total War are phenomenal. Mordheim was great as is Vermintide.
CSM just got a revamp...all four GDs are out. A bunch of new nurgle and Slaanesh. Some nurgle, too.
Orks got excellent buggies. Necrons are getting a massive sweep right now.
I'm not thinking of the Kirby days at all. I'm mostly thinking of right now. Those BSF renegades? They were being sold by the sprue on the webstore, with gibbery rules about throwing them into a general chaos soup detachment without any plan They're gone now. Instead they put out an expansion with pushfit nurgle stuff leftover from the 8th edition boxsets.
Those computer games you just named? GW has done nothing to capitalize on any of them. Not even one of those games is even being sold anymore as a tabletop game.
They _might_ cross promote total warhammer 3 with the Old World, but it depends wildly on when both come out- and it doesn't even look like GW has nailed down their side of things, and they might well be setting it in a different period.
CSM got a few random models. Legions got nothing. The handful of daemons involved playing catch-up for more than a decade.
Orks got a few hotwheels racers. I'm talking about warbuggies and deffkoptas.
Necrons will finally get some stuff, yes. What is that capitalizing on? Don't get me wrong, its great to see it, but it doesn't build on cross-promotion or clever marketing. Its just finally a decent release after a year plus of drips and dregs.
Just going off what Tabletop Tactics said in one of their battle reports (behind a paywall) where they were apparently allowed to use the new points values. 20% is a little exaggerated, it seems to have been more like 17%.
I believe TTT, they're pretty straight shooters. It's not like they have any reason to lie either, that definitely doesn't make gw look good, so no ulterior motive. Doesn't look good for Sisters. And going by what we already know about cultists and tacs, doesn't look good for csm either.
yukishiro1 wrote: Just going off what Tabletop Tactics said in one of their battle reports (behind a paywall) where they were apparently allowed to use the new points values. 20% is a little exaggerated, it seems to have been more like 17%.
Huh. Well smaller points values see bigger percentages over small shifts. I mean Battle Sisters are 9ppm IIRC right now going to 10-11 points is around 17% alone (a 17% shift is 10.53 points, so they probably went to 11).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: I believe TTT, they're pretty straight shooters. It's not like they have any reason to lie either, that definitely doesn't make gw look good, so no ulterior motive. Doesn't look good for Sisters. And going by what we already know about cultists and tacs, doesn't look good for csm either.
The points shift was likely to keep them relative to armies like Guard, but that's just a guess.
All the really cheap choices seem to have got big points increases. I think the logic behind it is that bodies - particularly ob-sec bodies - are worth more in 9th because scoring is about controlling objectives. So it doesn't really matter that cultists, say, can't actually do anything but stand around - it's the standing around that wins you the game now.
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
The upshot is that the strongest army in the game got the least points increases because it's also the army with the most elite troops. And they had to keep intercessors better than old marines, because otherwise it would undo the Primaris Replacement Project they've spent years on. So that's why, e.x., scouts and tacticals went up so much.
O mani would love it if there was a Basken Robins marine book for all the flavors. I doubt GW would do it though. It would probably cost like 200 bucks anyway.
yukishiro1 wrote: All the really cheap choices seem to have got big points increases. I think the logic behind it is that bodies - particularly ob-sec bodies - are worth more in 9th because scoring is about controlling objectives. So it doesn't really matter that cultists, say, can't actually do anything but stand around - it's the standing around that wins you the game now.
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
The upshot is that the strongest army in the game got the least points increases because it's also the army with the most elite troops. And they had to keep intercessors better than old marines, because otherwise it would undo the Primaris Replacement Project they've spent years on. So that's why, e.x., scouts and tacticals went up so much.
Lovely. The problem is that csm have always been tied to tacs as far as points are concerned. If the current paradigm holds, that would make csm 14 ppm: a 27% increase. If that happens then the salt mines will be blown wide open. You think csm players are salty now? Imagine if both our troops options get a bigger nerf than intercessors.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
Eh, I dunno. I went and looked them up. Seems like they could roll them into traitor guard and be done with it. Do we really need more factions at this point? There is what, 30 factions in the game already? That's part of the reason it's so dang hard to balance this game out for matched play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: What I got from the TTT vid that there is a plethora of secondaries. So you could not run that many ob-sec bodies and still kick ass.
I thin there will be a lot of quirky(thank god) builds thanks to the different scoring parameters.
TTT Video? What is this? Did they do a live-stream of some kind?
yukishiro1 wrote: Just going off what Tabletop Tactics said in one of their battle reports (behind a paywall) where they were apparently allowed to use the new points values. 20% is a little exaggerated, it seems to have been more like 17%.
18.1%. And that's not an exaggeration, that's just rounding.
Argive wrote: What I got from the TTT vid that there is a plethora of secondaries. So you could not run that many ob-sec bodies and still kick ass.
I thin there will be a lot of quirky(thank god) builds thanks to the different scoring parameters.
You can't run that many cultists any more because it now costs more than 2000 just for the cultists. That's what a 50% price hike will do. I suspect they got nerfed so hard because back when you could, it was easy for them to max primaries and secondaries, and then it doesn't mater what secondaries the opponent takes, they lose by default because they're losing hold more on the primary each turn and that's that, you can't win if your opponent is maxing. Which would have been pretty easy for that 400 cultist list to do with the secondary choices available - there are at least 3 that are realistic to max for a bodies list depending on the enemy list's clearing capabilities: recon, hold more, behind enemy lines, psychic ritual, the normal action in the middle of the board, raise the banners, and that's just off the top of my head.
yukishiro1 wrote: All the really cheap choices seem to have got big points increases. I think the logic behind it is that bodies - particularly ob-sec bodies - are worth more in 9th because scoring is about controlling objectives. So it doesn't really matter that cultists, say, can't actually do anything but stand around - it's the standing around that wins you the game now.
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
The upshot is that the strongest army in the game got the least points increases because it's also the army with the most elite troops. And they had to keep intercessors better than old marines, because otherwise it would undo the Primaris Replacement Project they've spent years on. So that's why, e.x., scouts and tacticals went up so much.
Doesn't explain why a hand flamer is 5 points now though.
And why did tacs go up so much more compared to intercessors as a %?
Because GW wants you to buy intercessors. Enough time has gone by since Primaris was introduced that GW can start taking off the kids gloves in regards to shifting the players from marinelets to primaris.
But on the bright side, CSM have no Primaris, so they very well might escape getting nerfed too hard.
MPJ wrote: The condemnor boltgun went up to 5pts too for some inexplicable reason
Yeah some of it reads like typos, or stuff that was filled in with placeholders and then just forgotten about .
It also calls into question their response to playtesting again, because obviously playtesters are smart cookies, they would have flagged this stuff as obviously absurd.
I assume what happened in testing was some people figured out if you just took like 400 fearless cultists you could win by just standing on objectives for 5 turns and unless the person you were fighting had tons of volume of fire they'd just lose. So they nerfed their points values so that strategy wasn't efficient any more.
This has been my theory as well regarding the very targeted nerfs to hordes. With progressive scoring (officially) becoming the new standard, units being able to just sit around on an objective all game can no longer be allowed. Now that 5-man chaff unit sitting on an objective in the backline is actually a serious threat that has to be dealt with. So someone parked 40 cultists or a load of PBs on an objective in the beta testing and cleaned house.
Yeah, it's one of the things that has me reconsidering long-held opinions about the game. I've always been a "the game should be about playing the mission more than killing your opponent" guy. But I'm starting to think that maybe ITC was right to have both a hold and a kill primary. It rewarded you for putting at least some interactive elements in your list. Kill might not have been the only or best way to have an interactive primary, but I'm starting to think it's a mistake not to have any interactive element to the primary.
Looking at 9th, and committed to playing combat-based lists because that's just what I've always liked...all the strongest theory-crafted lists I'm coming up with are a variation on "just sit on objectives with massed ob-sec and 3 non-interactive secondaries and don't interact with the opponent unless they come onto you, and hope the game ends while you still have enough bodies to win the primary each turn." And that doesn't feel satisfying.
That said, it does appear that what we've seen are non-competitive missions and non-competitive secondaries. So the fact that these may (may - I could be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time) lead to a bad game when played competitively may just be because they aren't set up for that. Who knows, maybe the tournament mission pack and tournament secondaries will be amazing. Here's hoping.
Well, GW seems to have caught it, hence the horde nerfs, so hopefully the extra lethality against them will prevent turtling styles from becoming meta.
It's hard to say though. Even with horde nerfs, MSU is mostly untouched, and it's just as easy to slap three ten-man cultist squads on an objective as it is to put down a 30-man.
Well, sort of. But what if it's just that it's a bad idea to have a game with fully non-interactive objectives (you can even take 3 non-interactive secondaries if you want, so you can have 5 objectives that are all non-interactive if you want)? Then it isn't really a question of how you price stuff - I mean, you can hammer into the ground to make it not work, but that's just brute forcing what is actually a design problem.
We'll see I guess. It's obviously early to be crying doom before the edition is even out. It's just got me a bit worried in my list-building stages that I can't find what I think is a good combat list that is interactive. I keep looking at stuff like what Siegler ran today and thinking "there is no way I can realistically go after that list with a combat list, it just isn't going to work, so the only alternative is to stop going after that list."
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
The R&H rules from IA 13 in 7th allowed you to build an army that would fit either of those descriptions. You could have traitor pdf, mutant rabble, veterans, even better veterans (grenadiers), hereteks, and more. The rule set allowed for loads of customization. Probably the most since csm 3.5. It was great. And they replaced it with the mess that we got in the fw Indexes.
I always wanted to do traitor guard who were dedicated to Khorne, can't remember what they were called but they were in the Ghaunt's Ghost's novels.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
The R&H rules from IA 13 in 7th allowed you to build an army that would fit either of those descriptions. You could have traitor pdf, mutant rabble, veterans, even better veterans (grenadiers), hereteks, and more. The rule set allowed for loads of customization. Probably the most since csm 3.5. It was great. And they replaced it with the mess that we got in the fw Indexes.
I always wanted to do traitor guard who were dedicated to Khorne, can't remember what they were called but they were in the Ghaunt's Ghost's novels.
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
GW won't fail to capitalize on that.
What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
You're thinking Kirby days.
Battlefleet Gothic and Total War are phenomenal. Mordheim was great as is Vermintide.
CSM just got a revamp...all four GDs are out. A bunch of new nurgle and Slaanesh. Some nurgle, too.
Orks got excellent buggies. Necrons are getting a massive sweep right now.
I'm not thinking of the Kirby days at all. I'm mostly thinking of right now. Those BSF renegades? They were being sold by the sprue on the webstore, with gibbery rules about throwing them into a general chaos soup detachment without any plan They're gone now. Instead they put out an expansion with pushfit nurgle stuff leftover from the 8th edition boxsets.
Those computer games you just named? GW has done nothing to capitalize on any of them. Not even one of those games is even being sold anymore as a tabletop game.
They _might_ cross promote total warhammer 3 with the Old World, but it depends wildly on when both come out- and it doesn't even look like GW has nailed down their side of things, and they might well be setting it in a different period.
CSM got a few random models. Legions got nothing. The handful of daemons involved playing catch-up for more than a decade.
Orks got a few hotwheels racers. I'm talking about warbuggies and deffkoptas.
Necrons will finally get some stuff, yes. What is that capitalizing on? Don't get me wrong, its great to see it, but it doesn't build on cross-promotion or clever marketing. Its just finally a decent release after a year plus of drips and dregs.
I'm going to talk purely about the video game side of things (because that's what got me into the hobby). Total War: Warhammer has gotten me, a fair few of my friends, and a lot of other people I've seen on the internet into the hobby. Even ignoring that one game, Mechanicus/BFG/Vermintide/Gladius serve to get the IP into the public eye. They don't /need/ to capitalize on those games because the IP stands well on its own (so long as they lend it to decent game developers). If they tried to (for example) force a game developer to make a Necron vs. Space Marine video game to coincide with the release of Indomitus that would be problematic in more than a few ways:
A. The developer would be under a time crunch and likely not actually care about the end result all that much (we see that in movie video games tie-ins all the time)
B. The developer would be restricted by the lore constraints of Indomitus, and have significantly less room to build their own lore.
C.The game wouldn't age well. Who wants to play a game strictly about Indomitus when 10e comes out? When the next narrative campaign The Psychic Sleepening (the obvious sequel to Psychic Awakening) happens?
The way that they've set up the cross-medium interaction as it stands is good enough IMO. Get the white dwarf article with Gotrek and Felix and get a code for Total Warhammer 2. New lore develops and you can hint at it in the yearly Blood for the Blood God event.
I'm fine (but disappointed) with the low effort tie-ins being limited to bolter porn novels, I don't need them to spend millions on low effort video game tie-ins as well.
What's with all the hate for Heavy Bolters in this new edition?
BlaxicanX wrote: But on the bright side, CSM have no Primaris, so they very well might escape getting nerfed too hard.
Your optimism is inspiring.
Voss wrote: What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things. Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
As I've been saying for years: GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.
They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
The R&H rules from IA 13 in 7th allowed you to build an army that would fit either of those descriptions. You could have traitor pdf, mutant rabble, veterans, even better veterans (grenadiers), hereteks, and more. The rule set allowed for loads of customization. Probably the most since csm 3.5. It was great. And they replaced it with the mess that we got in the fw Indexes.
I always wanted to do traitor guard who were dedicated to Khorne, can't remember what they were called but they were in the Ghaunt's Ghost's novels.
Blood Pact.
While they probably are talking about the Blood Pact, the Sons of Sek were also dedicated to Khorne.
I think Renegades players waiting for the new FW books are going to be mightily disappointed, especially when you consider that the entire R&H section of the FW website is 6 generic Guard vehicles.
I fully expect R&H to be missing from the new FW books since the models are OOP and there are so many hints of Traitoris Militarum being an eventual book.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I fully expect R&H to be missing from the new FW books since the models are OOP and there are so many hints of Traitoris Militarum being an eventual book.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think Renegades players waiting for the new FW books are going to be mightily disappointed, especially when you consider that the entire R&H section of the FW website is 6 generic Guard vehicles.
While I am quite worried about what they will do with R&H, and admit that there's a good chance you're right, I would remind you that we've never had any models for R&H besides infantry, and although the official fw models for them are gone it would be entirely possible to replace them with the traitor guard models from Blackstone Fortress.
Yes, they may be squated, but could you please refrain from dancing on their grave until they're officially buried?
Gadzilla666 wrote: While I am quite worried about what they will do with R&H, and admit that there's a good chance you're right, I would remind you that we've never had any models for R&H besides infantry, and although the official fw models for them are gone it would be entirely possible to replace them with the traitor guard models from Blackstone Fortress.
Yes, they may be squated, but could you please refrain from dancing on their grave until they're officially buried?
I'm not dancing on anyone's grave. This is something I don't want to be right about, but the R&H line basically doesn't exist anymore. Yes, you had infantry, and that combined with vehicles is what made you a faction. Now you don't have any unique models, so I think that you have Legends in your future.
Do I think GW will do something more expansive with the Traitor Guard stuff from BSF? I do. I think that quite a lot of that stuff has been the test-bed for a proper expansion of that faction (much like how we eventually got a proper Chaos Knights 'Dex). But the R&H stuff itself is almost guaranteed to be gone.
From what I heard the FW team had an extremely limited amount of time to produce the 8th edition indexes. Add to that the passing of Alan Bligh right before 8th, and I'm guessing the studio was pretty messed up and under intense workload. It's a real shame, as I think the FW Guard index is the worst book that I have ever bought from GW. I'm a huge FW fan and really hope to see a good set of rules from them this time.
They literally heard of 8th and upcoming fw indexes same time with you and me. And same source
The more I think about those points the more I hope that they're playtester leaks. Mostly because not seperating out wargear is a bad design choice we've seen before.
I mean it's possible GW crapped the bed on this, but I'm hoping they didn't.
From what I heard the FW team had an extremely limited amount of time to produce the 8th edition indexes. Add to that the passing of Alan Bligh right before 8th, and I'm guessing the studio was pretty messed up and under intense workload. It's a real shame, as I think the FW Guard index is the worst book that I have ever bought from GW. I'm a huge FW fan and really hope to see a good set of rules from them this time.
They literally heard of 8th and upcoming fw indexes same time with you and me. And same source
Distressingly common in corporate workplaces. I get about half of the pertinant information for my job from the information flyers they put above the urinals.
Between thr military and retail I can say it's distressingly common. Basically everyone assumes someone else will pass the information on...and then it never is.
Well, a few years back I had a co-worker who found out that his contract had been terminated from not being able to log into his computer anymore - not even his supervisor knew, they had to go up three more people to find out why he has terminated
Jidmah wrote: Well, a few years back I had a co-worker who found out that his contract had been terminated from not being able to log into his computer anymore - not even his supervisor knew, they had to go up three more people to find out why he has terminated
is it wrong that i find that somehow ,i dunno, impressive feat?
Like, what was the personal management doing? Or heck anyone?
Jidmah wrote: Well, a few years back I had a co-worker who found out that his contract had been terminated from not being able to log into his computer anymore - not even his supervisor knew, they had to go up three more people to find out why he has terminated
I went on a week vacation, came back, showed up to my first shift, and met my replacement. Not fired thankfully, just transferred to another site.
Meh, maybe as Ab Humans to mix into other factions but if we get a Space Dwarves faction I want them more like KO from Fantasy: greedy mercenaries who harness the warp through technology instead of being psykers.
I hope more like Kharadron- space borne faction cut from the imperium, rebuilding in the fringes of space.. perhaps even space pirates.. bearing grudges against those whole them down..
Be great to see how GW might redo them, the Kharadron are excellent.This isn't the first hint of them either- Grombridal mentioned them in WD a few months back. Beards and axes in space... what's not to like!
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's with all the hate for Heavy Bolters in this new edition?
BlaxicanX wrote: But on the bright side, CSM have no Primaris, so they very well might escape getting nerfed too hard.
Your optimism is inspiring.
Voss wrote: What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
As I've been saying for years: GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Basically any heavy weapon that isn't Blast can now be fired on the move for free on a vehicle and used in combat which makes it infinitely more valuable. Blast weapons didn't change much because although they can generally be fired for free on the move you cant use them in combat.
I'm scratching my head on the servitor points increase...they do nothing other than fill elite spots for imperium armies that have few good elites for a brigade.
The servator change will be to offset the reductions in their Heavy weapons. And also maybe to make taking them as a filler unit a bit pricier.
The disturbing thing is 2k in 9th of SoB and GSC under new rules seem to be about 1700 points in 8th while 2k of Marines doesnt look that cheap. I.E . They don't appear to have had as many points increases, but it's not super clear as it seems people are scrambling to get content out and uploaded with what they have and it's not 100% clear if its CA2020 points playtest points or if some people are using ith points.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What's with all the hate for Heavy Bolters in this new edition?
BlaxicanX wrote: But on the bright side, CSM have no Primaris, so they very well might escape getting nerfed too hard.
Your optimism is inspiring.
Voss wrote: What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
As I've been saying for years: GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Basically any heavy weapon that isn't Blast can now be fired on the move for free on a vehicle and used in combat which makes it infinitely more valuable. Blast weapons didn't change much because although they can generally be fired for free on the move you cant use them in combat.
I'm scratching my head on the servitor points increase...they do nothing other than fill elite spots for imperium armies that have few good elites for a brigade.
That doesn't really explain why Multimeltas and Heavy bolters, weapons nobody brought unless they HAD to or were imperial Fists went UP while the Lascannon, which was all over the place, especially in IH lists, went down.
ClockworkZion wrote: The more I think about those points the more I hope that they're playtester leaks. Mostly because not seperating out wargear is a bad design choice we've seen before.
I mean it's possible GW crapped the bed on this, but I'm hoping they didn't.
I think they separated it out internally and combined it to make pointing things a little easier.
Take the Firestrike. It adds A twin lastalon for 40 points when a singular lastalon is 35 in the other points. This means the Firestrike is 130 - 80 or 50 base and then the new twin lastalon will be 70 (which doesn't bode well for the points of Eradicators). That's my guess in any case.
Ooh, they've just shown off a Biker Chaplain on the stream. Very nice. Between him and the Silent King, the quality of the upcoming releases continue to impress.
That being said what's gonna happen to the Deceiver and the Nightbringer models seeing as they're still finecast?
Hopefully they get a redo down the line. I doubt they'll be squatted, given that they showed their images in that video. I guess that we still gonna be stuck with a few finecast minis after this release. I'd love to see the Deceiver done on this scale though.
So were shards of the Void Dragon acquired before his defeat at the hands of The Emperor and subsequent imprisonment on Mars? Or were the Necron raids on Mars successful in recovering these shards? Or maybe The Emperor only defeated a single shard?
Nostromodamus wrote: So were shards of the Void Dragon acquired before his defeat at the hands of The Emperor and subsequent imprisonment on Mars? Or were the Necron raids on Mars successful in recovering these shards? Or maybe The Emperor only defeated a single shard?
Emperor defeating the (actual?) Void Dragon is probably old-timy fluff from back when Nightbringer and Deceiver models were also still representing the actual (unbroken) C'Tan and Necrons were still C'Tan-slaves?
Voss wrote: Oh. So... still no generic c'tan shard.
That's exciting.
Almost as exciting as the green putty bloating this model beyond practicality.
This and silent king are the first two real knocks these new necrons have taken.
The burning one shard from the obelisk/vault kit has been demoted to having the rules for a generic shard despite still being referred to as transcendent, seemingly incorrectly.
Those Necron characters look amazing, can't wait to get my hands on them. My only worry is that my poor little Imotekh and old metal Nighbringer are going to look quite puny next to them. Great stuff though.
Also, that Chaplain on bike is very nice, it's going to fit nicely into my little Black Templar force.
I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
But the background of the full shot of the silent king and all his stuff, there is a thing in the upper left on top of a building- several buttress arms arcing the ubiquitous 'putty lightning' to a crystal like the one on the current monolith. That looks like a plastic terrain piece to these eyes. (though the square building it rests on does not)
Oguhmek wrote: Those Necron characters look amazing, can't wait to get my hands on them. My only worry is that my poor little Imotekh and old metal Nighbringer are going to look quite puny next to them. Great stuff though.
Also, that Chaplain on bike is very nice, it's going to fit nicely into my little Black Templar force.
I'm already planning an Imotekh conversion out of the overlord in Indomitus - the tacyhon arrow is perfect base to convert into the Gauntlet of Fire.
As for Nightbringer, I'm still kinda hoping for a dual/tri build kit with the Void Dragon. The Deceiver wouldn't be too hard at least, just a head and arm swap, plus lose the wings.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
Which is good. Just release proper terminators and get rid of the split lore. And just update models. Maybe what they should have done at the start. Other model lines have updates. Not sure why it's such a problem for marines as well . Just make em use the same base size and people can slowly update according to their income.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
Honestly besides a random idea of greed I never got why GW didn't just outright upgrade marines into Primeris in one go. Like they did every time before. It seems really odd to have two model lines in the same army that are basically copy-catting each other.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
Honestly besides a random idea of greed I never got why GW didn't just outright upgrade marines into Primeris in one go. Like they did every time before. It seems really odd to have two model lines in the same army that are basically copy-catting each other.
It tooks 30 years to build that line. There is no way to upgrade and release it all overnight without seeming excessive. Hell, people complain the amount of models they got in 8th was excessive, I'd hate to see what the whole line dropping at once would do.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
Honestly besides a random idea of greed I never got why GW didn't just outright upgrade marines into Primeris in one go. Like they did every time before. It seems really odd to have two model lines in the same army that are basically copy-catting each other.
It tooks 30 years to build that line. There is no way to upgrade and release it all overnight without seeming excessive. Hell, people complain the amount of models they got in 8th was excessive, I'd hate to see what the whole line dropping at once would do.
He presumably means why didn’t they just give everyone the primaris organs at once.
Though honestly given the power creep on the bikes and melta gravis guys, I’m circling back around to “What was the point to primaris in the first place?” Again.
When all the marines have crossed the rubricon primaris, marine armies will have the model count a of 3rd edition marine army but will cost as much as a 7th edition sisters army
Jidmah wrote: When all the marines have crossed the rubricon primaris, marine armies will have the model count a of 3rd edition marine army but will cost as much as a 7th edition sisters army
I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Our tanks are 80$ and it's STILL a massive bargain conpared to what it was.
A note on servitors -
IMO they were very good before for their ability to score/screen the backline for as cheap as possible & they will still be good even at 7 ppm.
They are infantry, they can do actions, 4 of them cost as much as a single melee weapon wielding intercessor sergeant - whats not to love?
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
Honestly besides a random idea of greed I never got why GW didn't just outright upgrade marines into Primeris in one go. Like they did every time before. It seems really odd to have two model lines in the same army that are basically copy-catting each other.
It tooks 30 years to build that line. There is no way to upgrade and release it all overnight without seeming excessive. Hell, people complain the amount of models they got in 8th was excessive, I'd hate to see what the whole line dropping at once would do.
Yes but over that 30 year period we've had several generations of marine models released. Primaris are just the newest generation, only instead of swapping over models and calling them marines GW went the odd path of keeping both lines at once in the same army. So instead of replacing the old marine kit with the primaris and then steadily swapping things in and out (ergo your old marines they now count as primaris) they went for a duel release. So now you've an army of two parts that's sort of wanting to go with the newer, but at the same time wanting to keep the old. It's sort of stuck half way and feels messy.
That said I don't play marines so its a curiosity and oddness and my only worry is GW trying it with other forces (which I don't think is going to happen).
hoping guy who gave notes from video(behind paywall for me) was joking. 5 pts for that is joke. Even at 1 pts it's never done anything even vs tsons. I just have couple as they look good and tend to run couple points short so fun cool looking additions.
Hyperbole much? 
. At least 
