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.

Because this prevailing attitude about how much the game is garbage is a terrible way to keep the game going. Not being constructive and just saying "it is broke, not worth playing" and so on makes you a terrible AMBASSADOR for the game. New people see this place and probably run screaming from the hobby. And that all stems from the same attitude of griping instead of growing.

So first, you ignored everything else I posted. You post multi-paragraph rants and then just drop it? Fair enough sir. Fair enough.

Most of the discussion I've seen has been pretty reasonable (admitedly have seen the hyperbole as well) on the "who goes first thing". For the most part. Just because someone levels an opinion that differs from yours does NOT mean they are saying the game is trash. I think a lot of what I've said is pretty fair honestly, and your go-to is to say "my tactics are bad" with zero knowledge. Immediately attacking the way I and my group play while simultaneously having no knowledge about how I and my group play. What's that about being an "ambassador" again?

And yeah, people are going to give GW a pretty hard time about the "most playtested edition ever". If you want to pick on my posts, that's probably where you should have started, but even that's pretty fair critique. They haven't really used that play testing very well have they? A day 1 FAQ that itself needed a Day 2 FAQ is pretty damning and if someone were looking to get into the game, I would honestly tell them now is not the time anyway. They need to let 9th mature a bit more.

Sometimes, actually having a good game to play is more important than keeping a bad game going.

I refuse to be an ambassador for a bad game by lying about how bad it is. That's disingenuous and immoral.

If a game is bad, the onus is on the designers to fix it if they want the game to keep going. The onus is not on the players to say "it's good" even when it's bad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sometimes, actually having a good game to play is more important than keeping a bad game going.

I refuse to be an ambassador for a bad game by lying about how bad it is. That's disingenuous and immoral.

If a game is bad, the onus is on the designers to fix it if they want the game to keep going. The onus is not on the players to say "it's good" even when it's bad.

Absolutely this.

It's like when people say that customers have some sort of responsibility to keep a company afloat. No, if that company wishes to remain afloat then it has an obligation to its customers to actually deliver a product that they're willing to buy without deception or coercion.

Tycho wrote:

Because this prevailing attitude about how much the game is garbage is a terrible way to keep the game going. Not being constructive and just saying "it is broke, not worth playing" and so on makes you a terrible AMBASSADOR for the game. New people see this place and probably run screaming from the hobby. And that all stems from the same attitude of griping instead of growing.

So first, you ignored everything else I posted. You post multi-paragraph rants and then just drop it? Fair enough sir. Fair enough.

Most of the discussion I've seen has been pretty reasonable (admitedly have seen the hyperbole as well) on the "who goes first thing". For the most part. Just because someone levels an opinion that differs from yours does NOT mean they are saying the game is trash. I think a lot of what I've said is pretty fair honestly, and your go-to is to say "my tactics are bad" with zero knowledge. Immediately attacking the way I and my group play while simultaneously having no knowledge about how I and my group play. What's that about being an "ambassador" again?

And yeah, people are going to give GW a pretty hard time about the "most playtested edition ever". If you want to pick on my posts, that's probably where you should have started, but even that's pretty fair critique. They haven't really used that play testing very well have they? A day 1 FAQ that itself needed a Day 2 FAQ is pretty damning and if someone were looking to get into the game, I would honestly tell them now is not the time anyway. They need to let 9th mature a bit more.

You think it is all about you? I don't like to get into one-on-one discussions because I believe it distracts from the bigger conversation and shuts down being able to address points that you may not feel are relevant to the discussion you want to have.

I've been pointedly trying to NOT call anyone out, dare I hurt their feelings for calling them stuck in the mire of a mindset locked in older editions.

FAQs are probably the result of millions of people seeing the words a million different ways. It was probably OBVIOUS to GW playtesters that Daemon Princes were not supposed to be able to "Look Out, Sir" for each other, and there's so much other data to process that this innocuous wording slips under the radar... if it even came up at all in the game, it is a very niche situation. It sure seems easy and obvious to us, but my experience with a lot of 40K players is that they all have law degrees and prefer to win via technicality instead. You know, the obvious "feel bad" rulings that were clearly not intended? Yeah, those rules. The presence of day 1 and 2 FAQs is not indicative that the game is broken. It is indicative that it is not perfect. And it is also indicative that GW does care about the quality their product, counter to many of the arguments being presented here and elsewhere.

the_scotsman wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
In discussions about balance it usually goes like this:

-> Something is unbalanced
-> You won't achieve perfect balance
-> We don't want perfect balance, we wan't good enough balance.

On average 7.9% points away from a 50/50 chance. Since 50/50 is not realistic, how far away from it is okay?

Not 8%.

I disagree with your premise that 50/50 is an unrealistic goal for the variable of "who went first." I think you could apply some pretty simple compensating factors to the second player in order to close that gap quite a bit.

Some ideas:

1) Second player gets to score Primary points on the first turn.

2) Second player's Command Phase is at the end of their turn, rather than the beginning.

3) Second player's units all add +1 to their saving throw rolls during the first turn for "dug in positions"

Wow it's almost as though you can relate all these problems to GW refusing to let go of the IGOUGO mechanic!

Blaming the messenger is a common psychological reaction. You have to try not to take it personally. When someone is yelling at you for not being positive enough about the hobby because you made a reasoned criticism, they're really deflecting their own frustrations onto you, because their orientation doesn't allow them to blame GW, the actual guilty party.

This is why the positive posters here are actually quite a bit more likely to make personal attacks than the negative ones; the negative ones focus on GW, while the positive ones unfortunately sometimes focus on attacking people who criticize GW.

But it's important to remember that those people aren't really making personal attacks; it's not really you they're attacking, it's the idea you're bringing up that the emperor has no clothes (or at least, is missing some particular article of clothing) that they are attacking. If somebody tells you to git gud, they're not really telling you personally that you're bad, they're just denying the existence of a problem in the only way they know how.

Sometimes, actually having a good game to play is more important than keeping a bad game going.

I refuse to be an ambassador for a bad game by lying about how bad it is. That's disingenuous and immoral.

If a game is bad, the onus is on the designers to fix it if they want the game to keep going. The onus is not on the players to say "it's good" even when it's bad.

There are definitely some posters that, I don't get why they're here. Outside of the place allowing them to vent whatever negative parts of their personality need venting so that they can be fine in normal life. That's definately a thing, and I get the frustration w/that, but I also think most people are sophisticated enough to weed through those comments.

What I don't get is, why come into a thread where the goal is to discuss the real life impressions of the game and then attack someone for discussing their real life impressions of the game? lol Did I say "We feel like it's not quite ready for prime-time?" Yes. But I also said we probably need to wait for the 9th ed books. Multiple times. Doesn't get much more fair than that. But somehow, I'm lumped in w/the group saying the game is trash, and also being told I need to be a better "ambassador" while also being told I'm not having fun correctly, that I refuse to change, and that I'm just generally "doing it wrong". lol

EDIT:

for calling them stuck in the mire of a mindset locked in older editions.

Which you freely call them while having absolutely no idea what-so-ever how they're playing. Their results are different from yours so they must be doing it wrong. lol

Probably time to drop out of this one. Methinks ye-old shark hath been jumped.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Because this prevailing attitude about how much the game is garbage is a terrible way to keep the game going. Not being constructive and just saying "it is broke, not worth playing" and so on makes you a terrible AMBASSADOR for the game. New people see this place and probably run screaming from the hobby. And that all stems from the same attitude of griping instead of growing.

So first, you ignored everything else I posted. You post multi-paragraph rants and then just drop it? Fair enough sir. Fair enough.

Most of the discussion I've seen has been pretty reasonable (admitedly have seen the hyperbole as well) on the "who goes first thing". For the most part. Just because someone levels an opinion that differs from yours does NOT mean they are saying the game is trash. I think a lot of what I've said is pretty fair honestly, and your go-to is to say "my tactics are bad" with zero knowledge. Immediately attacking the way I and my group play while simultaneously having no knowledge about how I and my group play. What's that about being an "ambassador" again?

And yeah, people are going to give GW a pretty hard time about the "most playtested edition ever". If you want to pick on my posts, that's probably where you should have started, but even that's pretty fair critique. They haven't really used that play testing very well have they? A day 1 FAQ that itself needed a Day 2 FAQ is pretty damning and if someone were looking to get into the game, I would honestly tell them now is not the time anyway. They need to let 9th mature a bit more.

You think it is all about you? I don't like to get into one-on-one discussions because I believe it distracts from the bigger conversation and shuts down being able to address points that you may not feel are relevant to the discussion you want to have.

I've been pointedly trying to NOT call anyone out, dare I hurt their feelings for calling them stuck in the mire of a mindset locked in older editions.

FAQs are probably the result of millions of people seeing the words a million different ways. It was probably OBVIOUS to GW playtesters that Daemon Princes were not supposed to be able to "Look Out, Sir" for each other, and there's so much other data to process that this innocuous wording slips under the radar... if it even came up at all in the game, it is a very niche situation. It sure seems easy and obvious to us, but my experience with a lot of 40K players is that they all have law degrees and prefer to win via technicality instead. You know, the obvious "feel bad" rulings that were clearly not intended? Yeah, those rules. The presence of day 1 and 2 FAQs is not indicative that the game is broken. It is indicative that it is not perfect. And it is also indicative that GW does care about the quality their product, counter to many of the arguments being presented here and elsewhere.

Tightly written rules without 500 different interpretations benefit everyone, but you seem to forget that.

The weird thing about the "40k players are all rules lawyers! they unreasonably read things RAW!" argument to me is that:

1. If that were true, shouldn't GW write rules with that player base in mind? In this scenario, is it that GW is too ignorant to know its own player base, or does it know its players are rules lawyers, but is just incapable of writing technically sound rules?

2. GW specifically tells you to play RAW over RAI, even if it makes no sense. This is an explicit validation of the rules lawyer approach.

There are games systems that err much more on the RAI side than the RAW side. But GW's rules aren't one of those systems. GW's rules are explicitly to be played RAW, even when they make no sense.

I say this as someone who himself leans much more towards RAI-style interpretation, mind you. I can do the RAW thing, but it doesn't make me happy. I wouldn't have seriously tried the Daemon Prince Super Friends thing, for example - but if someone else tried it on me, with the way GW tells you to apply rules RAW, I would have had to let them do it, because they explicitly say that you should resolve issues by prioritizing RAW over RAI even if the result makes no sense.

Blaming the messenger is a common psychological reaction. You have to try not to take it personally.

Normally I do ignore it, but that one was pretty hilariously bad so I felt the need to call it out.

Had they not added the "ambassador" part I'd have probably just ignored it. lol

Again, not attacking players who want "tightly-written rules", just pointing out the attitude that has developed over decades of loosely written rules.

I saw a SHARP change in the wording and rule structure in 9th. It was a huge departure from every ruleset I've seen put out by GW, though I've only played since 4th. The language is a lot less permissive. The rules are expanded on at length to be more descriptive of what GW has in mind. Heck, each rule even comes with a summary now. Hilarious as it is, I do like it.

But where do you think GW came up with all of that? What was the motivation for them to have to give a 3 paragraph explanation of what "falling back" actually entails. Why is there a specific movement for NOT MOVING? How have we gotten to this point?

Again, not flaming GW for doing it... or the players for wanting to have it this way... knowing exactly what is expected on the table is a really nice comfort. I, personally, like it... because it nips a lot of those 30-minute discussions about which way the scatter dice is pointing and what happens if a micron of my base is in the wrong place.

I think the shift on the Core Rules has been nice in 9th, and it was a heavy shift... maybe not on the mechanics, but definitely on the language. I expect they'll continue that trend and keep improving as they settle into the new format of how to write these things. Not perfect, but at least an incremental improvement that didn't necessarily make things worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:

Blaming the messenger is a common psychological reaction. You have to try not to take it personally.

Normally I do ignore it, but that one was pretty hilariously bad so I felt the need to call it out.

Had they not added the "ambassador" part I'd have probably just ignored it. lol

Like it or not, we're all ambassadors for the game. When people see you playing at the store, online, or overhear you talking or writing about it... you become an ambassador. I think we could all do with trying to find better ways to articulate ourselves, especially finding ways to criticize without dragging. I'm terrible at it, but I am constantly striving to find ways to express complex thought in difficult mediums (like text). Forgive me if I sound like I'm trying to drag you personally, I am not. I am trying to criticize the attitude that draws people into a perpetual cycle of negativity. I do stand by my points, however poorly I presented them, however.

Like it or not, we're all ambassadors for the game. When people see you playing at the store, online, or overhear you talking or writing about it... you become an ambassador. I think we could all do with trying to find better ways to articulate ourselves, especially finding ways to criticize without dragging. I'm terrible at it, but I am constantly striving to find ways to express complex thought in difficult mediums (like text). Forgive me if I sound like I'm trying to drag you personally, I am not. I am trying to criticize the attitude that draws people into a perpetual cycle of negativity. I do stand by my points, however poorly I presented them, however.

That's fair and I often also fail to make points as eloquently as I would like. My point is not that your criticism was "bad". It's that it was a criticism based literally on nothing. It wasn't even a criticism. If someone had said "Well, I tend to specifically do XYZ while using Army ABC with THIS composition" then talking about their tactics, mindset etc is perfectly valid. Your criticism was based solely on someone having a different experience than you and if you look back through the thread, you'll see you jumped right into the response pattern I predicted. You didn't level a "poorly constructed critique". You jumped to a conclusion and tried your best to pin it on someone. No matter how well worded, that approach will always fail. That's the difference.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Blaming the messenger is a common psychological reaction. You have to try not to take it personally.

Normally I do ignore it, but that one was pretty hilariously bad so I felt the need to call it out.

Had they not added the "ambassador" part I'd have probably just ignored it. lol

Like it or not, we're all ambassadors for the game. When people see you playing at the store, online, or overhear you talking or writing about it... you become an ambassador. I think we could all do with trying to find better ways to articulate ourselves, especially finding ways to criticize without dragging. I'm terrible at it, but I am constantly striving to find ways to express complex thought in difficult mediums (like text). Forgive me if I sound like I'm trying to drag you personally, I am not. I am trying to criticize the attitude that draws people into a perpetual cycle of negativity. I do stand by my points, however poorly I presented them, however.

Why did you ignore my post about being an ambassador?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sometimes, actually having a good game to play is more important than keeping a bad game going.

I refuse to be an ambassador for a bad game by lying about how bad it is. That's disingenuous and immoral.

If a game is bad, the onus is on the designers to fix it if they want the game to keep going. The onus is not on the players to say "it's good" even when it's bad.

And what's the moral standing of all the people who haven't even attempted to play the game, but yet hold the same firm opinion? Do you think your subjective assessment is immune to hyperbole?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Absolutely this.

It's like when people say that customers have some sort of responsibility to keep a company afloat. No, if that company wishes to remain afloat then it has an obligation to its customers to actually deliver a product that they're willing to buy without deception or coercion.

No one here is expected to do such a thing - nor should anyone. But lots of people argue in bad faith and pretend they're not. They stop at the first level that confirms their premise and don't bother to dig any further.

Tycho wrote:

Like it or not, we're all ambassadors for the game. When people see you playing at the store, online, or overhear you talking or writing about it... you become an ambassador. I think we could all do with trying to find better ways to articulate ourselves, especially finding ways to criticize without dragging. I'm terrible at it, but I am constantly striving to find ways to express complex thought in difficult mediums (like text). Forgive me if I sound like I'm trying to drag you personally, I am not. I am trying to criticize the attitude that draws people into a perpetual cycle of negativity. I do stand by my points, however poorly I presented them, however.

That's fair and I often also fail to make points as eloquently as I would like. My point is not that your criticism was "bad". It's that it was a criticism based literally on nothing. It wasn't even a criticism. If someone had said "Well, I tend to specifically do XYZ while using Army ABC with THIS composition" then talking about their tactics, mindset etc is perfectly valid. Your criticism was based solely on someone having a different experience than you and if you look back through the thread, you'll see you jumped right into the response pattern I predicted. You didn't level a "poorly constructed critique". You jumped to a conclusion and tried your best to pin it on someone. No matter how well worded, that approach will always fail. That's the difference.

Unfortunately, I'm not criticizing a specific feature or point. It is more aimed at an attitude. And it feels like throwing a dart into the darkness with a fog machine going, honestly.

I see a lot of arguing that table dimensions are why the game is unplayable or that we have these problems. Also about the terrain quantity. And the argument goes both ways, right? But what is at the core of the argument? My LRBT cannot suppress 4 objectives simultaneously, thus the edition is garbage. Or melee chargers can get into my lines, or DEEP into my lines early in the game and my cheap chaff costs more to protect me from it! Then it deflects into "movement is less important because everything has lul range right now". Then come the strawmen and bogeymen who only exist to thwart the current conversation about how the table size changes the game and what tactics just got more relevant.

Honestly, Tycho, your opinions seem far less destructive to the conversation than many. I'm not trying to flame you directly by any measure. I honestly don't know the conditions on your tables or with your friends. I'm curious to know more, for sure, to see how your experiences of 9th line up with mine. But I think the conversation veering off into talking about how the game is broken (read as: changed) needs to be pointed out so the rest of it can be kept in front of us. Not let it get overran by the boo-birds who likely won't be happy with anything developed by GW for whatever reason.

So... yeah, I think the "9th edition is garbage edition" comments are hopefully done for now, maybe we can get back to discussing the "Real Game Impressions of 9th".

And I guess if I am going to say that... I should definitely reiterate mine:

Table size has definitely had a positive impact on a few shelved units. I love howling banshees... and they can definitely strike DEEP into enemy territory now and make things a mess. We played a few times with +1S on their power swords out of curiosity... and it yielded them middling results. Nothing HUGE! They weren't suddenly wiping everything they touched, but they definitely work as a nice distraction carnifex at worst... a reliable way to shut down nasty overwatch abilities at best.

I got a couple of games with my biel-tan army this past weekend, and most of the same old tricks seemed to work with them. I usually have a Farseer jumping around with a group of Spectres, using Doom + Natural Leader to really punish anything they get near. Movement with them got a lot more significant, though, because of the cap to "to hit" penalties. Probably been the hardest part of the game.

Getting Heroic Intervention back on the Yncarne has been a bright spot, even though I didn't get to use it. Having him jump around place-to-place seems to have a bigger impact on the board, too. Overally, my Craftworld army felt paper thin... but could at least punch things out decently. I did like the Hornet, though. Those poor things had a LOT of dust on them. But now I pulled one out, used its movement and range to create firing lanes and did some nice work with it. And that just feeds into my overall satisfaction with more terrain being able to absolutely block LOS and getting away from "I see your banner!" type situations.

Big miss for me has been the caps to hitting. It does seem to help armies out a lot (oh, haha, -4 to hit because of terrain + advancing + trait + whatever...), and it does seem to really impact armies that used that as a defensive mechanism... even in the edition where unmodified 6s are claimed to always succeed. Perhaps moving over to something more of: -1 max from each of the following sources: your own modifiers, field modifiers, and opponent's modifiers. Kind of like they did with selecting secondaries and how they were grouped into categories with a cap of one from each.

The biggest issue I have more with table size is not slow melee threats or supe rlong range weapons which tended to pay a points premium. Its than the smaller boards have had an unhappy effective of giving way too much of the board within range of even basic infantry let alone deepstriking/infuratiing units.

Marines being the poster childer for this troops with 24 inch range infultrating anywhere in the board your entire deployment zone is under threat, standard deployment troopa with 30 inch range weaposn and 6 inch move your entire deployment zone is within range turn 1.

Again while the smaller boards have helped slow melee armies, smaller deployment and the amount of high speed or infultrating units makes going first a bigger advantage as you can shut your opponent into their deployment zone and kill their game play for even a coupel of turns.

Phobos armies always intrigued me, and now it seems like they got really good in 9th. I'd be interested to see if they start showing up.

Just enough Infiltrators to tie up the front line for a turn or two to get a massive jump on primary... and with secondaries currently being hard to score vs Primaris in general. That's kind of the thing that worries me, but it is still just a bogeyman right now, as I've yet to see anything to confirm that feeling I got

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Phobos armies always intrigued me, and now it seems like they got really good in 9th. I'd be interested to see if they start showing up.

Just enough Infiltrators to tie up the front line for a turn or two to get a massive jump on primary... and with secondaries currently being hard to score vs Primaris in general. That's kind of the thing that worries me, but it is still just a bogeyman right now, as I've yet to see anything to confirm that feeling I got

Tested it they are broken as feth vrs certain armies however vrs other marines their damage output is so rediculously they die trivially. Also not helped by having terrible match ups of things that want to punch you in the face.
Also it's not like marines can't just wipe most other factions of the board wholesale so why bother with gimics when you can just table your opponents before scoring uncontested.

I've played a fair number of 9th games so far, probably around 15-20 games spread out against 4 different opponents (I've been playing games literally every weekend since early July), and I've even got a three-way crusade going.

My initial response is that 9th from a core rules-perspective is "good".
I consider more or less every change in 9th to be an improvement over 8th.

What "issues" I have with 9th are things that can (and most likely will) be fixed or improved when the codexes and expansions start arriving;
- Balancing, internally and externally. (Including FW-stuff.)
- More missions.
- More secondary objectives.
- Crusade-related improvements.

Edit: I suppose the terrain-rules could do with a slight tweak, but they're still miles ahead of 8th.

Ice_can wrote:

Also it's not like marines can't just wipe most other factions of the board wholesale so why bother with gimics when you can just table your opponents before scoring uncontested.

I play against Salamanders weekly and this has yet to happen.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Also it's not like marines can't just wipe most other factions of the board wholesale so why bother with gimics when you can just table your opponents before scoring uncontested.

I play against Salamanders weekly and this has yet to happen.

Simply put how? What arr you playing and what is he playing?

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Also it's not like marines can't just wipe most other factions of the board wholesale so why bother with gimics when you can just table your opponents before scoring uncontested.

I play against Salamanders weekly and this has yet to happen.

Simply put how? What arr you playing and what is he playing?

he's playing real life, not whatever game this website is playing.

Marines are strong but they can't table you turn one like people say they can on here.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Also it's not like marines can't just wipe most other factions of the board wholesale so why bother with gimics when you can just table your opponents before scoring uncontested.

I play against Salamanders weekly and this has yet to happen.

Simply put how? What arr you playing and what is he playing?

he's playing real life, not whatever game this website is playing.

Marines are strong but they can't table you turn one like people say they can on here.

I specifically 100% never said turn 1 because that wasn't may IRL experience, it's just they have excessive ability to just pick up too much of the opponents army be that the part thats a threat to them, the part that's contesting objectives or whatever's left.

Ice_can wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Also it's not like marines can't just wipe most other factions of the board wholesale so why bother with gimics when you can just table your opponents before scoring uncontested.

I play against Salamanders weekly and this has yet to happen.

Simply put how? What arr you playing and what is he playing?

he's playing real life, not whatever game this website is playing.

Marines are strong but they can't table you turn one like people say they can on here.

I specifically 100% never said turn 1 because that wasn't may IRL experience, it's just they have excessive ability to just pick up too much of the opponents army be that the part thats a threat to them, the part that's contesting objectives or whatever's left.

Yeah theyll pick you off, you can still play the mission while getting tabled and end up close in points. And im pretty sure Daedalus plays on maps with more terrain than what we see in most tournaments so that helps a lot.

he's playing real life, not whatever game this website is playing.

Marines are strong but they can't table you turn one like people say they can on here.

I've really only seen one or two people claim turn 1 tablings. Most people I've seen have said true "alpha strike" appears to be very difficult. I'd agree with that assessment. Have that many people really claimed getting tabled t1?

This isn’t 9th. Given the level of and number of changes being /leakedhinted at in codexes, 9th is going to be a different beast even than 9th with 8th Ed codexes. Even something as “simple” as giving all the marine infantry an extra wound could/would force a recalculation of cost/benefit for the old marine units.

The multi Melta change this edition with the transport changes from last edition could mean suicide meltas are back, but they don’t have to suicide anymore as you can pack along a supporting unit with a “free” ride. I was just talking about this in another thread. 3x5 MM Devs in pods, plus 15 more assorted infantry - caps, lts, tacs, footslogger assault marines, vanguards, sternguards, or if they allow Primaris but not Gravis in drop pods (or potentially finally release the Primaris drop pod) - bladeguard, Intercessors Reivers etc. dropping on that center of the board you talk about giving a potential of units in all 4 corners, 9+ units in your opponents deployment zone, and who knows what other secondaries. And that’s just vanilla marines a couple of leaks, and one wild guess. The changes to 9th are coming from the codexes, not the rule book, the rule book didn’t even really change all that much beyond fixing a few boneheaded mistakes.

I don't think focusing on attrition and just trying to score on turns 3-5 is good idea. Progressive scoring seems to punish that. Even the Salamander players I have seen do well are running bikes and/or infiltrators to make a play for primary.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yeah theyll pick you off, you can still play the mission while getting tabled and end up close in points. And im pretty sure Daedalus plays on maps with more terrain than what we see in most tournaments so that helps a lot.

My experience was
1 they kill what is a threat to them
2 they kill the obsec
3 they kill what's left

It makes trying to even win on outscoring them an uphill struggle.

Maybe mass obscuring terrain blunts their damage output, but we're playing on rulebook/event level terrain.

Ice_can wrote:


Again while the smaller boards have helped slow melee armies, smaller deployment and the amount of high speed or infultrating units makes going first a bigger advantage as you can shut your opponent into their deployment zone and kill their game play for even a coupel of turns.

Probably not this edition, but I’m betting future ones are going to see a lot of ranges/distances chopped by about the same ratio as the board size. Not just Gun ranges. Movement speeds, not-within-X inches bubbles, etc. a 4x8 foot table (What we used to call a sheet of plywood, Or roughly Onslaught size as GW calls it now) is 4096 square inches. Your not within 9” bubble is about 64 square inches, or about 1.5-2% of the table. 33x40 Or Strike Force the smallest table is 1320 square inches or closer to 5% of the table. A 4x8 table has a diagonal of about 108 inches. A 33x40 table has a diagonal of 51 inches. A 3 inch tank model + a 48 inch las cannon range....

I think the realm of battle boards 6 2x2 plastic panels - the table GW sold to people - were 4x6: 3456 square inches, 86.5 on the diagonal.

Ice_can wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yeah theyll pick you off, you can still play the mission while getting tabled and end up close in points. And im pretty sure Daedalus plays on maps with more terrain than what we see in most tournaments so that helps a lot.

My experience was
1 they kill what is a threat to them
2 they kill the obsec
3 they kill what's left

It makes trying to even win on outscoring them an uphill struggle.

Maybe mass obscuring terrain blunts their damage output, but we're playing on rulebook/event level terrain.

Sounds like people are not taking advantage of terrain or the reserve rules. Reserving key units has won me games.