The state of 8th and rumours of 9th

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.

**Martel732**

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
I disagree. Our group almost exclusively plays Wh40k by the books and most of the big issues are prevalent there just as they are in ITC.

Usually it's quite the opposite - things that are obnoxious in ITC are just ok in regular games because there are no magic boxes or secondary objectives.

Exactly. ITC creates just as many problems as it fixes. In truth most of my games lately have just been CA missions without any special terrain rules. The main issue with this kind of game is the game being over in 3 turns and objectives not mattering much.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Its possible to get costs sufficiently accurate that book missions and itc both work.

Yes - actually balanced point costs fix both game modes.

Balanced points costs for ITC will be different to balanced points costs in the book missions and especially in the latest CA19.

I played against the supposedly-so-broken-all-we-can-do-is-cry Iron Hands stuff in a tournament last week. Literally all the stuff the internet is raging about. CA19 missions, I played the mission and got tabled on turn 6 with such a big VP lead it did not matter. So is that IH stuff broken and massively undercosted for CA19 missions? On the evidence of the day, I would say there is a problem there - it is absolutely horrible for less experienced players to deal with - but no way broken. Given the experience of the day, I would suggest that with CA19 missions and enough experienced players around that stuff will be a flash in the pan - a brief fad for a horribly boring list that will go away because it is a classic mid-table bully that does not win on the top tables so does not win tournaments.

If I had the exact same match-up in ITC mission I would have been crushed without any possible route to victory - so in ITC that stuff is broken because it really only leaves a handful of viable army builds in the whole game that can deal with it. In ITC that stuff needs a nerf either to its rules or to its points values, in CA19 missions I think it is a bit too strong but not so much that any sort of nerf is urgently needed and failing to win tournaments will sort the problem out naturally.

I have no idea how you are getting to turn 3 tablings in CA19 missions in your games, everyone must just be going all-in on ridiculous glass cannon lists where you are. I had none of that and where my opponents did concede it was because by turn 4 or so I had an unassailable VP point lead in progressive scoring (and they fancied a drink), not because they were even that close to getting tabled.

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.

**CREEEEEEEEED**

Jidmah wrote:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.

And behold, after the rain ends and the clouds disperse, there shall be sunshine!

I know a random guy on the internet isn't proof, I just wanna link to this when it drops and gloat while saying I told you so.

**happy_inquisitor**

Martel732 wrote:

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.

Dude, I just literally played that game last weekend. This is not theory-hammer, this is practical experience.

Gotta love Dakka sometimes.

**Martel732**

That wasn't my point. Read it again.

**Asmodai**

Jidmah wrote:
The Newman wrote:
I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.

Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.

I think this is true, in the few games of Warmachine I played I really liked how you could assassinate the warcaster to snatch victory despite getting stomped.

I don't think there is a good way to implement such a think in 40k though. Something like killing the warlord wouldn't work because some armies simply can't do that and some warlords are night impossible to kill.

Other armies field 9 Snipers who hit on 2's and ignore line of sight. If you make killing a Company Commander or an Ethereal an instant-win, then Marine players will just build around using Eliminators get to that Turn 1 every game (even more than they already do).

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

It raises a good point. I really hope 9th adds IGOUGO mechanics.

**Dudeface**

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.

Dude, I just literally played that game last weekend. This is not theory-hammer, this is practical experience.

Gotta love Dakka sometimes.

I believe Martel was stating that your IH opponents were poor quality otherwise you would have been shot off before you could cap objectives, not that you can't envision people being wiped turn 3 which is commonplace in ITC.

Just trying to translate - I agree with your stance that IH are an issue but being able to play to a mission should be more important than a killing focused game.

**Daedalus81**

Nithaniel wrote:
I was stung pretty badly by GW at the end of 7th. The Traitors Hate supplement came out just a few months before it was invalidated by 8th edition. My memory is poor but I think it was released in March 2017 and 8th was June.

This sudden rush of books through psychic awakening feels like the same pattern from 7th with Gathering Storm campaign and Traitors Hate.

I won't be buying any of the psychic awakening books just in case it happens again.

I don't blame you. They did do well on compensating people who bought those later books though. Were you able to take advantage of that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.

This is the kind of comment that creates these rumors.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean its not happening. You can't play the mission when your units are dead. Savvy IH players are not going to let you build such a huge lead in CA 2019. The points may be slightly different, but broken in one format is likely broken in the other. Killing always works if the player is good.

Dude, I just literally played that game last weekend. This is not theory-hammer, this is practical experience.

Gotta love Dakka sometimes.

I am skeptical of that sort of success as well, but I will remain open minded. Not sure if my store will do non-ITC this month.

**Martel732**

If i kill you before you can cap, format ceases to matter.

**Blood Hawk**

Martel732 wrote:
If i kill you before you can cap, format ceases to matter.

Sure if you are noob stomping. The best lists in 8th stack defenses. Good luck ignoring the mission and just killing against triple riptide lists with 30+ shield drones.

**Martel732**

Does triptide lose efficacy going from CA 2019 to ITC?

**happy_inquisitor**

Dudeface wrote:

I believe Martel was stating that your IH opponents were poor quality otherwise you would have been shot off before you could cap objectives, not that you can't envision people being wiped turn 3 which is commonplace in ITC.

Just trying to translate - I agree with your stance that IH are an issue but being able to play to a mission should be more important than a killing focused game.

He was asserting it without any understanding of the facts, essentially in denial of the stated facts. I'm not going to waste too much of my life trying to persuade people like that.

I am not going to comment on the quality of my opponent, I am going to say that I am definitely no Nick Nanavati and no extreme differences in skill level were involved. I had never played that mission before and now having played it I know I could and should have played it better, as I will next time.

We can agree that IH are an issue right now and that the crazy upgrades to Techmarines were neither needed nor wanted by anyone but IH players looking for easy-win buttons to press. There are marine units I would agree are too cheap for what they do and some of those are prevalent in IH lists. None of that means that they are broken just that they are very strong and happen to be exactly the sort of thing that is a bad experience for a lot of mid-table players.

**Martel732**

I'm not denying what happened at all. Read it again. I don't need to know the details of your match if I'm taking you at your word.

Despite your match, turn 3 wipes happen, and turn 3 cripplings are even more common. You can't cap with a crippled list. The real power of IH is to park on objectives and force people trying to "play the objectives" to feed themselves into a blender. IG has been doing this since 5th, with varying degrees of success.

**Stormonu**

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.

This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.

To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.

**Xenomancers**

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
I disagree. Our group almost exclusively plays Wh40k by the books and most of the big issues are prevalent there just as they are in ITC.

Usually it's quite the opposite - things that are obnoxious in ITC are just ok in regular games because there are no magic boxes or secondary objectives.

Exactly. ITC creates just as many problems as it fixes. In truth most of my games lately have just been CA missions without any special terrain rules. The main issue with this kind of game is the game being over in 3 turns and objectives not mattering much.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Its possible to get costs sufficiently accurate that book missions and itc both work.

Yes - actually balanced point costs fix both game modes.

Balanced points costs for ITC will be different to balanced points costs in the book missions and especially in the latest CA19.

I played against the supposedly-so-broken-all-we-can-do-is-cry Iron Hands stuff in a tournament last week. Literally all the stuff the internet is raging about. CA19 missions, I played the mission and got tabled on turn 6 with such a big VP lead it did not matter. So is that IH stuff broken and massively undercosted for CA19 missions? On the evidence of the day, I would say there is a problem there - it is absolutely horrible for less experienced players to deal with - but no way broken. Given the experience of the day, I would suggest that with CA19 missions and enough experienced players around that stuff will be a flash in the pan - a brief fad for a horribly boring list that will go away because it is a classic mid-table bully that does not win on the top tables so does not win tournaments.

If I had the exact same match-up in ITC mission I would have been crushed without any possible route to victory - so in ITC that stuff is broken because it really only leaves a handful of viable army builds in the whole game that can deal with it. In ITC that stuff needs a nerf either to its rules or to its points values, in CA19 missions I think it is a bit too strong but not so much that any sort of nerf is urgently needed and failing to win tournaments will sort the problem out naturally.

I have no idea how you are getting to turn 3 tablings in CA19 missions in your games, everyone must just be going all-in on ridiculous glass cannon lists where you are. I had none of that and where my opponents did concede it was because by turn 4 or so I had an unassailable VP point lead in progressive scoring (and they fancied a drink), not because they were even that close to getting tabled.

When armies are actually fighting each other and every unit is engaging - a 2000 point list only last about 3-4 turns. It is simple math. The mission rarely comes into play - especially if you are just fighting for objectives in the middle. When the mission does matter its usually like...The player with 1 model left has more points than me but I am on literally every objective and going to double him in 1 turn. Just gotta roll a 3+ to see who wins if the game goes another turn.

**Daedalus81**

Stormonu wrote:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.

This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.

To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.

They have plenty of churn even without a new edition.

**Xenomancers**

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

I believe Martel was stating that your IH opponents were poor quality otherwise you would have been shot off before you could cap objectives, not that you can't envision people being wiped turn 3 which is commonplace in ITC.

Just trying to translate - I agree with your stance that IH are an issue but being able to play to a mission should be more important than a killing focused game.

He was asserting it without any understanding of the facts, essentially in denial of the stated facts. I'm not going to waste too much of my life trying to persuade people like that.

I am not going to comment on the quality of my opponent, I am going to say that I am definitely no Nick Nanavati and no extreme differences in skill level were involved. I had never played that mission before and now having played it I know I could and should have played it better, as I will next time.

We can agree that IH are an issue right now and that the crazy upgrades to Techmarines were neither needed nor wanted by anyone but IH players looking for easy-win buttons to press. There are marine units I would agree are too cheap for what they do and some of those are prevalent in IH lists. None of that means that they are broken just that they are very strong and happen to be exactly the sort of thing that is a bad experience for a lot of mid-table players.

Ironhands have too many free rules. It is undebateable. Compare an IH stormhawk to literally any other marine faction. It does more damage just because (cause it's 3's reroll 1's compare to everyone else hitting on 4's with no rerolls) Same for basically every marine unit with a heavy weapon. That is broken. IH are winning 70% of their games in ITC and they are going to do just as well in every other format because they just blow you off the table by ignoring all marines weaknesses. Sure IH can lose - they aren't indestructible. Thing is - marines are playing with a 9th edition codex in 8th edition. That is why they are so strong. Every army is going to have this kind of setup in the next edition.

You guys are giving way to much credit to the rule sets in regards to balance. The army that wins is usually the army that pays less to get more. That is never balanced in 40k is the problem.

**The Newman**

Asmodai wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
The Newman wrote:
I've said repeatedly that 40K's real problem is a lack of a baked-in check-mate condition in the core rules because without one it's nigh impossible for the player who is losing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and if the game isn't built around having a check-mate it's really hard to bolt one on after the fact.

Nobody seems to be listening to me on the matter though.

I think this is true, in the few games of Warmachine I played I really liked how you could assassinate the warcaster to snatch victory despite getting stomped.

I don't think there is a good way to implement such a think in 40k though. Something like killing the warlord wouldn't work because some armies simply can't do that and some warlords are night impossible to kill.

Other armies field 9 Snipers who hit on 2's and ignore line of sight. If you make killing a Company Commander or an Ethereal an instant-win, then Marine players will just build around using Eliminators get to that Turn 1 every game (even more than they already do).

You could add "may not be targetted if it's not the closest model" to the Warlord rules to get around that, since as stands all the sniper weapons explicitly ignore the Character targetting restrictions. That would also get around the problem of (10+ wounds = no character protection) + (dead warlord = win) making it suicidal to make a Flyrant or a Greater Daemon your warlord, but there's almost certainly something I'm overlooking that would be completely broken/unplayable garbage under such a rule.

Which gets back to what I was saying in the first place, that having a checkmate condition almost requires building the game around that mechanic from the ground up.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

I gotta say, I have yet to play a game against space Marines that makes it to the 4th turn, and I run Custodes, which are SUPPOSED to be the hardest thing to kill in 8th.

**happy_inquisitor**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I gotta say, I have yet to play a game against space Marines that makes it to the 4th turn, and I run Custodes, which are SUPPOSED to be the hardest thing to kill in 8th.

Could be tricky, marines seem to be very good at killing hard targets.

I don't know Custodes well enough to know what counter-play they might have - nobody around here is playing them at the moment and they are the exact opposite of the sort of thing that suits my playstyle.

What I will say is that we are less likely to see an IH list like that in our local store again because he left empty-handed. It is not that suddenly all the other players have the tools to beat that list, it is more that by being beaten we are less likely to see that list so often in the future. There is a tendency for players to copy-cat just in order to compete but I don't think anyone will do that knowing that I have a strong counter which they have seen beat it.

**Martel732**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I gotta say, I have yet to play a game against space Marines that makes it to the 4th turn, and I run Custodes, which are SUPPOSED to be the hardest thing to kill in 8th.

They are not the hardest per point by a long shot. Guardsmen are a lot tougher.

**VAYASEN**

Stormonu wrote:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.

This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.

To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.

Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Why is everyone surprised when this happens? This literally happened the same way from 7th to 8th. Weren't Custodes and SOS released in March 2017? Didn't 8th drop in April 2017? Also, Sisters dropped in December 2016, with makes it exactly 3 months if anyone cares about that rumor.

**nataliereed1984**

VAYASEN wrote:
Stormonu wrote:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.

This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.

To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.

Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......

All the rumours suggest 9th will be a "soft" reset, so the codexes (codices?) should stay mostly relevant, especially the most recent ones. And all the great art and fiction and background stuff in them is still nice to have!

**redux**

Leaked 9th ed cover art.

**EnTyme**

As far as I can tell, the rumors of a June release for 9th edition started with Larry Vela from BoLS using his "industry insider" source. You know. The one who said Slaanesh was going to be squatted. Since then, I've seen other sites and blogs use his article as their source, and I've seen BoLS link to those articles to reinforce their argument. It's a laughably obvious example of circular referencing.

**happy_inquisitor**

Xenomancers wrote:
Ironhands have too many free rules. It is undebateable. Compare an IH stormhawk to literally any other marine faction. It does more damage just because (cause it's 3's reroll 1's compare to everyone else hitting on 4's with no rerolls) Same for basically every marine unit with a heavy weapon. That is broken. IH are winning 70% of their games in ITC and they are going to do just as well in every other format because they just blow you off the table by ignoring all marines weaknesses. Sure IH can lose - they aren't indestructible. Thing is - marines are playing with a 9th edition codex in 8th edition. That is why they are so strong. Every army is going to have this kind of setup in the next edition.

You guys are giving way to much credit to the rule sets in regards to balance. The army that wins is usually the army that pays less to get more. That is never balanced in 40k is the problem.

I think we are getting deep into semantics here on what we call broken. I reckon if a semi-competitive player like me can comfortably beat something it can't be "broken", you are using a different metric.

I think we just have to agree to disagree.

**Charistoph**

Even a broken analogue clock is right twice a day. Being wrong on one aspect doesn't mean they're wrong on everything.

That being said, if they don't "refresh" the edition's rules ala 9th or GHB 2, it will be the first time they've waited so long to do so with their main games in quite a long time.

**Stormonu**

VAYASEN wrote:
Stormonu wrote:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I am telling you all 100% 9th is coming soon, playtesting has been in the works for ages. You can quote me on this, 9th is within the next year or two.

This is not news. Every wargaming company/group is working on the next iteration before the current one walks out the door. The only question is, when do they pull the switch to sent it out.

To me, all signs point for a June release of the next version, so that the codex churn may begin anew.

Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......

Worrying what the future will bring only keeps you from enjoying what you have. Play what you got, when 9E comes, It comes. In the meantime, you’ll have had plenty of enjoyable games, rather than twiddling your thumbs waiting for the Next Great Version.

**dreadblade**

VAYASEN wrote:
Great, got back into 40k, spent a small fortune on Rules and the codex's over the last month and xmas.......

I wouldn't worry too much. It's only a rumour, and even if true may only result in needing to buy a new BRB.

I got back into 40K a year and a half ago and built an SM army like the one I used to play in to '90s. All I heard for a year was how Primaris marines were going to replace my entire army. Then there were rumours of a new SM codex that would 'definitely' spell the end with all their rules being removed from the game. And guess what? The new SM codex still contains all the old units and they benefit from all the new rules too.

Don't believe everything you hear on internet forums...