Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.

The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?

The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.

You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.

GW said they wrote 9th in mind of the stuff that is already written (PA, codexes) and day 1 errata and points changes will be out too.

So it's less they're writing books to match the new edition but rather they drew a line in the sand and everything that was in front of that line was accounted for while working on 9th. Everything after that line was written for 9th instead of being 8th and 9th.

 Yarium wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Sounds like a lot of assumptions without seeing how the game actually works.

You're 100% correct. So I really am holding my breath to see what the actual rules are. Until they're released, everything I've just said is totally possible to be changed. I just love me my infantry, and I've lived through a lot of editions where you could bring whatever you wanted, and I don't want to go back to that.

I don't think that the new edition will disallow you from taking infantry - so you should still get to love your infantry. I get having limitations with points and certain units etc, but why would you not want people to be able to bring what they want?

 Eldarain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Gee, it's almost like the Raven Guard trait of "count as in cover at 12" or further" suddenly makes more sense knowing that modifiers are capped.

Clearly. Our GW overlords are so far ahead of the curve that they took it into account for the favoured sons almost a year ago but then didn't bother accounting for 9th in the PA books since.

Pretty sure that the Aeldari 'custom trait' does the same thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

There's really no attrition so long as Fall Back exists as a mechanic.

It isn't going away, so deal with it.

They're introducing a stratagem allowing for you to go after retreating units though.
For anyone who wants to watch the interview, it's located here on Twitch.

Bdrone wrote:
Juust enough stuff to keep me very concerned.

Spoiler:

so lemme see if i have this correct. costs command to set up reserves- don't know how many.

costs command to use extra detachments, and "based on total game size" is however many command points.

assumption- expect less CP in certain armies, but no idea how much as of yet.

this has me worried for Pure tempestus and gene stealer cults in specific. also quite funny to make infantry key in 8th, and then go "ehh, limit your detachments, please." now.

Monsters can also do the "tank" thing? do they just mean vehicles or what?

great, crusade rules for the codexes. i wonder if that means codexes will go up in price to account for them, even if again you have no interest in that ruleset- i have skirmish games for that where my people have a larger chance of survival per game.

How will morale affect armies like knights, if any? unknown.

how exactly did they chance overwatch and falling back.

...all of this has made me shelve my tempestus idea (along with the price raising) ill watch from Imperial Knights as perspective, but considering how little engine war appears to offer them.... egh, so much for my interest until i get more hard data.

the modifier thing i hardly ever saw aside from eldar, so i don't know how abusable that was.

Your assumption about variable CP per faction goes against everything they have said.
Given your detachment can be a Brigade I dont understand why people are so opposed to having to pay CP to minmax detachments for bonuses, be that specialist detachments of optimising subfaction bonuses.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.

The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?

The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.

You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.

Not it actually allows strategums to finally be vaguely balanced for the first time since they were introduced, which given they have already said that there will be common core strategums in the 9th edition rule books makes it even more important for balance that every Codex starts on the same CP playing field.

Troos as a tax unit has provem to be a BS assumption as many factions just found a particularly efficent troop unit and went all in on that 1 unit. Infantry squads, scouts, rangers. It was a flawed idea and needed to die.

Personal experience:

Strategems, and by extension CP can be an overall major factor in how a game plays out. I know a good chunk of my best 'tricks' revolve around Strategems and they've won games for me.

However, I'd be lying if I wasn't honest- at certain point levels, some armies just aren't going to be able to generate CP's. And while it's certainly been a long while since I've played a full-blown game- the best I can remember through the cobwebs in my brain's 40k experiences in the last few years?

I think I managed to pull off one or two games with a Brigade Detachment. At some levels, like at around 1000 points- I can manage a Battalion Detachment, but doing so means I've really, really got to restrict myself in other ways- to the point where it's considerably punitive. I can run other Detachments instead, but considering that my army practically gobbles CP just to do what it needs to do in order to be at least worth someone playing at the table... yeah, I've got to wriggle stuff into a Battalion Formation and hope I've got myself covered.

Giving both players the same amount seems okay enough... however, I do think there should be ways to generate more (within reason).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Giving both players the same amount seems...

... like a typical GW reply to a complex problem: Just pretend it isn't a problem and swing that pendulum as hard as possible to the other side without acknowledging that there's more to it than a simple binary solution.

Same applies to the modifier nonsense.

And what's the bet someone can still target something by seeing a spine/claw/antenna/wing-tip/etc.?

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

nfe wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.

The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?

The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.

You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.

Not it actually allows strategums to finally be vaguely balanced for the first time since they were introduced, which given they have already said that there will be common core stratagems in the 9th edition rule books makes it even more important for balance that every Codex starts on the same CP playing field.

Troos as a tax unit has provem to be a BS assumption as many factions just found a particularly efficent troop unit and went all in on that 1 unit. Infantry squads, scouts, rangers. It was a flawed idea and needed to die.

Again, I am not making a case for obligatory troops. I'm keen to play with some dreadwaagh and nidzilla lists. I'm just still to be convinced of flat cp being solution to soup. I'd have just mandated a primary codex to be nominated and stopped any detachment using another from generating any CP, and maybe played with the detachments so that there were other options that generated plenty CP by filling out many slots but without troops - a spearhead equivalent but with 6 heavy support or whatever.

Anyway, I'm happy to see how it pans out, I'm just sceptical given it was first mentioned in the preview twitch as a solution to soup. I think it will massively reduce soup, but not necessarily one of the key problems that came from soup.

nfe wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Giving flat CP and pricing extra codices and detachments, discourages souping. This tackles 1, but it exacerbates 2. If everyone starts with the same, then you're just giving all those CP to the elite armies without their even having to pay a troop tax.

The idea of troop tax needs die. Troops tend to vary so greatly between factions that having to bring Troop troops means everybody just brings the same low point units and bars fluffy elite armies. I mean, how fun is it that every single Asuryani list has 3x5 rangers or that Space Marines have 3x5 scout marines or the 3x10 Chaos Cultists? Do people consider this type of troop tax fun to play with and against? Are CP batteries as a game mechanic desirable so the core of every single army is the same for each and everyone?

The removal of a troop tax is the best thing I've heard in a long time as it means I can actually play a Ravenwing/Deathwing list and even use the Ravenwing/Deathwing stratagems at the same time. It means I can run a honest god Asuryani wraith army without adding 3x5 rangers just so I can use wraith stratagems. The guy in stream even mentioned that this was a design issue in 8th as they discovered that certain armies and variations had effectively been locked out of the game due to how CP was generated.

You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.

Cheap troops are massed small arms fire are buckets of dice and damage.

An elite expensive army has a lot of difficulty putting out volume of fire and in many ways needs the buffs more than a more efficient chaff/buffing/saved points into a few key big toys army does.

Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?

I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

It's almost as if trying to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to a far more complex and nuanced problem just creates newer, different problems.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?

I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.

Those are from Saturday's stream, additional detachments cost CP and additional Codex's cost CP.

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?

I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.

Those are from Saturday's stream, additional detachments cost CP and additional Codex's cost CP.

I watched that stream and don't remember the detachment statement and haven't seen anyone else say that they said that either.

The extra codex thing I do recall though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

If they said that, I missed it. Could you point out the free detachment thing?

I do know they said that allies cost CP, but they never touched on if detachments themselves cost CP.

Those are from Saturday's stream, additional detachments cost CP and additional Codex's cost CP.

I watched that stream and don't remember the detachment statement and haven't seen anyone else say that they said that either.

The extra codex thing I do recall though.

I can vouch for the extra detachments costing CP from the first stream. I remember that pretty distinctly when they talked about Soup.

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

With loyalists rerolling all failed hits? No.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

With loyalists rerolling all failed hits? No.

Choas and other BS improved allies without reroll everything would like a word, also that reroll your reroll of a reroll aura nonsence needs to go it's reduced marine's to deathbubbles of aura hammer.

nfe wrote:

You're missing my point. Troop tax is only there as an example of a control on CP generation. Flat CP removes the core balancing mechanism for stratagems - that cheap armies with weak individual units have a range of ways to buff them whereas expensive elite armies have to be far more discerning.

But that was never the control. CP were supposed to be an incentive for building a balanced army following the classic FOC while skewed lists like "Oops All Heavy Support" got penalized. They aren't some sort of runner up prize for playing IG or Orks because GW thinks those armies are inherently weaker.

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

They have specifically stated that the first detachment is free, also seriously mono knights are down at 40% win rate. Not to mention their strategums have all been broken by the 32 and 17 BS from about 3 month's after their codex dropped.
Do we know for definite that the way cover and armoursaves is changing I didn't see that mentioned?

The reason for limiting stacking over just flat 6's is because weapons are priced on BS skill when a BS 3 lascannon is 25 points and 15 for BS4 them both being reduced to 6+ rather unbalanced don't you think.

With loyalists rerolling all failed hits? No.

Choas and other BS improved allies without reroll everything would like a word, also that reroll your reroll of a reroll aura nonsence needs to go it's reduced marine's to deathbubbles of aura hammer.

So you agree that the rule benefits loyalists and their reroll everything bubbles more than other factions. And agreed, aura hammer is lame. Marines should be mobile.

The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.

They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.

Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.

So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.


I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.

Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.

which is probably why they're the next boxed set...

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
So you agree that the rule benefits loyalists and their reroll everything bubbles more than other factions. And agreed, aura hammer is lame. Marines should be mobile.

Bolter Boy Bubbles are dumb, this is why my Loyalists are packed up and I haven't touched them for a long time. Honestly, I wish they'd bring back HQ's being able to join into a unit. Then you can give that specific unit a bonus reroll.

I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.

9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.

 Hellebore wrote:
The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.

They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.

Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.

So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.


I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.

Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.

which is probably why they're the next boxed set...

The initiative changes don't benefit marines that much. There's a lot of units that marines went before that will no have a chance to hit back. And the changes to sweeping advance primarily impact marines as they were relatively low offense but high durability. They relied on taking few wounds, and then sweeping advancing to actually kill things.

Low armor save units got a GIANT boost in defense vs marines due to the removal of old style AP 5. Marines used to ignore the armor of pretty much all guard, nid, ork, and eldar infantry, except for the occasional 4+ heavy infantry. Many units gained 33% durability vs marines that didn't exist before. Marines are less effective at shooting down stuff like boyz and gaunts now than they used to be, even with all the auras and stuff.

The REAL problem is that in earlier editions, these units could get 4+ cover saves that benefited them, but barely helped marines.

So one thing I noticed is chainswords on marines are gonna be a loot better. specificly.


"Q33: Are Astartes Intercessor chainswords better than other chainswords?
Stu - All Astartes chainswords are better than regular chainswords. They're bigger. Has more AP than a Guardsman being flung around. Different stat line."

so astartes chainswords I bet are gaining a point of AP

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.

They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.

Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.

So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.


I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.

Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.

which is probably why they're the next boxed set...

The initiative changes don't benefit marines that much. There's a lot of units that marines went before that will no have a chance to hit back. And the changes to sweeping advance primarily impact marines as they were relatively low offense but high durability. They relied on taking few wounds, and then sweeping advancing to actually kill things.

Low armor save units got a GIANT boost in defense vs marines due to the removal of old style AP 5. Marines used to ignore the armor of pretty much all guard, nid, ork, and eldar infantry, except for the occasional 4+ heavy infantry. Many units gained 33% durability vs marines that didn't exist before. Marines are less effective at shooting down stuff like boyz and gaunts now than they used to be, even with all the auras and stuff.

The REAL problem is that in earlier editions, these units could get 4+ cover saves that benefited them, but barely helped marines.

I'm not sure what point you're making, because I was specifically talking about T and Sv which you have confirmed are important.

I'm saying that there's now even less room to design units, if they don't have good T or Sv, then there are no other mechanisms to make the unit good.

There was an opportunity with modifiers to have 2 types of unit - defence through toughness and armour, or defence through being hard to hit. That last one is lost. This means that low T/sv elite units have no way of actually being any good, because the one opportunity they had has been lost.

So you end up in a position where the only way to make a unit survivable at all is relying entirely on saves and toughness, which some armies are fundamentally designed not to use, which means unless they're getting invulnerable saves, they will die in droves.

ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.

9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.

We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?

BrianDavion wrote:So one thing I noticed is chainswords on marines are gonna be a loot better. specificly.


"Q33: Are Astartes Intercessor chainswords better than other chainswords?
Stu - All Astartes chainswords are better than regular chainswords. They're bigger. Has more AP than a Guardsman being flung around. Different stat line."

so astartes chainswords I bet are gaining a point of AP

If they remain free that could be a boost to many units. Combi-bolter chosen keep looking better and better.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
If they remain free that could be a boost to many units. Combi-bolter chosen keep looking better and better.

Careful now. There's every chance in the world they'll forget about Chaos Marines, or make this a Primaris only thing.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.

9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.

We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?

BrianDavion wrote:So one thing I noticed is chainswords on marines are gonna be a loot better. specificly.


"Q33: Are Astartes Intercessor chainswords better than other chainswords?
Stu - All Astartes chainswords are better than regular chainswords. They're bigger. Has more AP than a Guardsman being flung around. Different stat line."

so astartes chainswords I bet are gaining a point of AP

If they remain free that could be a boost to many units. Combi-bolter chosen keep looking better and better.

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The cap on modifiers to hit really reinforces the game as a marine-centric one.

They've removed initiative, which benefited lightly armoured units in melee like nids and eldar.

Now they've removed the only other means that low T/low Sv units have to defend.

So these units, like T3 eldar, will die in droves and have no actual defence. no speed = defence, just T and Sv is defence.


I'm not sure what design space they've left 'soft' units to work in, because everything is being built around high toughness high save models. Which makes any unit or army that doesn't have those pretty crap. worse when they're supposed to be elite armies themselves like the eldar are.

Unless invulnerable saves are being handed out like candy, the cap on modifiers has killed any other play style other than Marine/Necron.

which is probably why they're the next boxed set...

The initiative changes don't benefit marines that much. There's a lot of units that marines went before that will no have a chance to hit back. And the changes to sweeping advance primarily impact marines as they were relatively low offense but high durability. They relied on taking few wounds, and then sweeping advancing to actually kill things.

Low armor save units got a GIANT boost in defense vs marines due to the removal of old style AP 5. Marines used to ignore the armor of pretty much all guard, nid, ork, and eldar infantry, except for the occasional 4+ heavy infantry. Many units gained 33% durability vs marines that didn't exist before. Marines are less effective at shooting down stuff like boyz and gaunts now than they used to be, even with all the auras and stuff.

The REAL problem is that in earlier editions, these units could get 4+ cover saves that benefited them, but barely helped marines.

I'm not sure what point you're making, because I was specifically talking about T and Sv which you have confirmed are important.

I'm saying that there's now even less room to design units, if they don't have good T or Sv, then there are no other mechanisms to make the unit good.

There was an opportunity with modifiers to have 2 types of unit - defence through toughness and armour, or defence through being hard to hit. That last one is lost. This means that low T/sv elite units have no way of actually being any good, because the one opportunity they had has been lost.

So you end up in a position where the only way to make a unit survivable at all is relying entirely on saves and toughness, which some armies are fundamentally designed not to use, which means unless they're getting invulnerable saves, they will die in droves.

My point is that those units didn't start dying in droves, even when they don't have penalties to be hit. Most of these units have been more resilient in 8th than ever before even without modifiers. They die in droves far less than in previous editions, where marines were considerably more efficient at killing them than they are now.

We had better balance between infantry types in earlier editions when the design space was, as you say, smaller.