40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

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.

**Therion**

addnid wrote:
Kaneda88 wrote:
Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:

-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big

-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.

Just a hunch, I could very well be totally wrong, but I think Characters won't be able to perform "objective related" actions, at least not the dirt cheap ones. Otherwise yes, order officers, meks, lictors, etc will be better than using troops to accomplish actions.

For all we know only troops will be able to perform some of the actions. If not now, then after the first faq when they realise averyone is trying to take minimal number of troops, jest like in... Nearly all 40k editions (one of the reasons i love 8th) .

I think this 9th ed releset will change a lot ad time goes by, and info fees back to GW. I am confident on the medium-long run for this ed, whatever "anti-hord anti-troop rules" are relased in July

My sources say characters aren’t untargetable like in 8th edition, so that should alleviate this concern somewhat. (character needs to be within x inches of another unit that is also closer to the enemy to be untargetable).

**the_scotsman**

Aaranis wrote:
If they make morale truly more important I hope they're not going to give "unbreakable" left and right so that it still matters. Keep the 2CP strat to auto-pass and a few Ld buffs from characters maybe, but unbreakable units are just tiresome.

What would be interesting would be a system where the size of the unit doesn't matter that much. I don't see why a sole survivor from a 5 man squad would be as likely to flee as a unit of 10 that lost 4 men. You still have 5 comrades.

Morale in 8th was a mess because there was no incentive on taking large or max sized units as you had the same Ld whether the unit is min sized or max sized. Yeah I can get a third special weapon on my Skitarii squad, but if I roll a 6 after losing 3 guys I lose 2 more for free whereas the unit would just be wiped on min sized, and thus I would've lost less models in a way.

I dislike the way morale is just free additional casualties. My cyborg soldiers wouldn't run like hell because they lost a few dudes, they'd regroup somewhere and counter-attack.

Yeah, I feel like they changed morale from 7th to 8th because "oh it's too complicated to track a unit falling back!" but it's just...objectively not. It's not hard. And it was a pretty cool game mechanic. i hope that they make morale more universal/easy to fail, and bring back some kind of fall back-regroup thing.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.

Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.

I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.

**The Newman**

tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.

That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.

If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.

Leaving aside for a moment the "don't judge the whole on two data points"* argument, Intercessors and Cultists aren't at all in the same context with regard to player complaints. The complaint about Cultists is that Chaos Space Marine armies should contain at least some actual Chaos Space Marines, aka a complaint coming from CSM players. The complaints about Intercessors is that they're too good, which is a complaint coming from the other side of the table.

There's also been those reports that when asked if the new CP generation meant that there wasn't a reason to take troops anymore and might we start seeing armies of just tanks, characters, and elites? the answer was a smug "maybe", so it's possible that CSM went up just a point or two as well to encourage taking the iconic troop option over Cultists while Intercessors didn't get a huge increase because GW thinks Loyalist players will skip the troop section altogether if they went up much more than that. Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.

* - Which I think is not an entirely fair argument in the first place; of course we're going to work from the assumption that GW considers the data points they published to be representative.

**Imateria**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Aash wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Bdrone wrote:
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.

well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.

12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.

Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:

Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.

From WHC:

The Command phase is a quick new addition to the turn sequence. In this phase, Battle-forged armies will acquire new Command points and spend the ones they have on certain Stratagems.

You're jumping to conclusions here, the WarCom article is giving examples of what can be done in the new Command Phase, it is not explicitly stated that both players will generate CP at the start of every turn, we just don't have the information to make that guess. Personally, I expect the actual rules to say "In your Command Phase", so you'll only be generating CP in your turn, but we'll see.

**Latro_**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.

haha those were the days, sometimes you hoped you did fail! didn't they get the chance to run you down if you did though.
oh 2ed

**Imateria**

Ice_can wrote:
Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.

If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.

No they don't, not in the slightest. An in built game mechanic for both players to generate CP in the Command Phase is mutually exclusive to any ability that allowes you to regain CP's after using stratagems or abilities that grant you extra CP (most of which happen before the game begins).

I have absolutely no idea how anyone could ever think that the existence of 1 mechanic automatically forces out the existense of all of the others, thats just daft.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Aaranis wrote:
If they make morale truly more important I hope they're not going to give "unbreakable" left and right so that it still matters. Keep the 2CP strat to auto-pass and a few Ld buffs from characters maybe, but unbreakable units are just tiresome.

What would be interesting would be a system where the size of the unit doesn't matter that much. I don't see why a sole survivor from a 5 man squad would be as likely to flee as a unit of 10 that lost 4 men. You still have 5 comrades.

Morale in 8th was a mess because there was no incentive on taking large or max sized units as you had the same Ld whether the unit is min sized or max sized. Yeah I can get a third special weapon on my Skitarii squad, but if I roll a 6 after losing 3 guys I lose 2 more for free whereas the unit would just be wiped on min sized, and thus I would've lost less models in a way.

I dislike the way morale is just free additional casualties. My cyborg soldiers wouldn't run like hell because they lost a few dudes, they'd regroup somewhere and counter-attack.

Yeah, I feel like they changed morale from 7th to 8th because "oh it's too complicated to track a unit falling back!" but it's just...objectively not. It's not hard. And it was a pretty cool game mechanic. i hope that they make morale more universal/easy to fail, and bring back some kind of fall back-regroup thing.

It definitely felt kinda like they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they changed the moral mechanic. I mean I hated how it was only a select few armies that ever cared about moral in 7th, and that moral checks were taken after every phase which got tedious, but now nobody cares about moral.

**tneva82**

Therion wrote:
My sources say characters aren’t untargetable like in 8th edition, so that should alleviate this concern somewhat. (character needs to be within x inches of another unit that is also closer to the enemy to be untargetable).

So basically if there's unit and character behind it and then from character you have 9" away enemy unit(hero is closer to enemy) BUT there's another unit next to the enemy unit(5" away from enemy) then the character can be targeted because the closest unit to enemy unit(which would protect character in 8th ed) isn't within x" of character and the unit that is within x" of character is further from enemy than the character?

Sounds actually decent fixing the issue of "can't shoot character all alone in the middle of nowhere" because he's 13" from shooter and 11" from shooter in completely different direction is some single survivor from unit.

**the_scotsman**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.

Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.

I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.

Yeah, it is funny how for some reason fantasy players have never really had this issue with morale abstractions that include gak like freaking skeletons, yet every 40k player ever gets insanely butthurt if you say that morale rules would apply to *insert faction here down to and including Guardsmen afraid of a man in a big hat or standing near a priest*

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Therion wrote:
My sources say characters aren’t untargetable like in 8th edition, so that should alleviate this concern somewhat. (character needs to be within x inches of another unit that is also closer to the enemy to be untargetable).

So basically if there's unit and character behind it and then from character you have 9" away enemy unit(hero is closer to enemy) BUT there's another unit next to the enemy unit(5" away from enemy) then the character can be targeted because the closest unit to enemy unit(which would protect character in 8th ed) isn't within x" of character and the unit that is within x" of character is further from enemy than the character?

Sounds actually decent fixing the issue of "can't shoot character all alone in the middle of nowhere" because he's 13" from shooter and 11" from shooter in completely different direction is some single survivor from unit.

Yeah, that makes sense. I'd go so far as to say it'd make the most sense if you had to be within like 3" of a friendly unit AND that friendly unit had to be within a certain threshold of your number of wounds, but that threshold does not have a hard cap. Let Pask hide if he's within 3" of 3 other identical Leman Russ tanks, don't let Guilliman hide behind Guardsmen.

**Ice_can**

Imateria wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.

If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.

No they don't, not in the slightest. An in built game mechanic for both players to generate CP in the Command Phase is mutually exclusive to any ability that allowes you to regain CP's after using stratagems or abilities that grant you extra CP (most of which happen before the game begins).

I have absolutely no idea how anyone could ever think that the existence of 1 mechanic automatically forces out the existense of all of the others, thats just daft.

You have total misread the conversation.
Clockwork said "both players get the same CP each turn"

That statement is either true and all exsisting ways to generate CP mid turn are gone, or his statementis incorrect.

**Abadabadoobaddon**

The Newman wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.

That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.

If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.

Leaving aside for a moment the "don't judge the whole on two data points"* argument, Intercessors and Cultists aren't at all in the same context with regard to player complaints. The complaint about Cultists is that Chaos Space Marine armies should contain at least some actual Chaos Space Marines, aka a complaint coming from CSM players. The complaints about Intercessors is that they're too good, which is a complaint coming from the other side of the table.

There's also been those reports that when asked if the new CP generation meant that there wasn't a reason to take troops anymore and might we start seeing armies of just tanks, characters, and elites? the answer was a smug "maybe", so it's possible that CSM went up just a point or two as well to encourage taking the iconic troop option over Cultists while Intercessors didn't get a huge increase because GW thinks Loyalist players will skip the troop section altogether if they went up much more than that. Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.

* - Which I think is not an entirely fair argument in the first place; of course we're going to work from the assumption that GW considers the data points they published to be representative.

I think this is unlikely. The problem with CSM is that they have to cost the same as tac marines, give or take a point. Even if the tac marines have much better rules. SM and CSM are supposed to feel like mirrors of each other and that just doesn't work if one greatly outnumbers the other, so the most tac marines will ever have to pay for all their special snowflake super special rules is 1 pt. What's the point of having all those special rules to make your guys feel superior and elite if the other side gets enough extra bodies that they overwhelm you with numbers? That's no fun!

And with the new actions system they may decide even 1 pt is too much. Afterall, CSM give up just a little pew pew shooting when they put down their bolters to siphon that sweet alien juice from the pillar, but tac marines give up their superdoctrine buffed shooting! That's a disadvantage for the tac marines, right? I can't see any flaws in that reasoning, can you?

Then the other problem is they want to push primaris, so they're going to skew the pts to make primaris the better choice. If CSM have to be strictly worse than tac marines and tac marines have to strictly worse than primaris you can see why that might be a problem for CSM.

**Kaneda88**

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
The Newman wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.

That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.

If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.

Leaving aside for a moment the "don't judge the whole on two data points"* argument, Intercessors and Cultists aren't at all in the same context with regard to player complaints. The complaint about Cultists is that Chaos Space Marine armies should contain at least some actual Chaos Space Marines, aka a complaint coming from CSM players. The complaints about Intercessors is that they're too good, which is a complaint coming from the other side of the table.

There's also been those reports that when asked if the new CP generation meant that there wasn't a reason to take troops anymore and might we start seeing armies of just tanks, characters, and elites? the answer was a smug "maybe", so it's possible that CSM went up just a point or two as well to encourage taking the iconic troop option over Cultists while Intercessors didn't get a huge increase because GW thinks Loyalist players will skip the troop section altogether if they went up much more than that. Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.

* - Which I think is not an entirely fair argument in the first place; of course we're going to work from the assumption that GW considers the data points they published to be representative.

I think this is unlikely. The problem with CSM is that they have to cost the same as tac marines, give or take a point. Even if the tac marines have much better rules. SM and CSM are supposed to feel like mirrors of each other and that just doesn't work if one greatly outnumbers the other, so the most tac marines will ever have to pay for all their special snowflake super special rules is 1 pt. What's the point of having all those special rules to make your guys feel superior and elite if the other side gets enough extra bodies that they overwhelm you with numbers? That's no fun!

And with the new actions system they may decide even 1 pt is too much. Afterall, CSM give up just a little pew pew shooting when they put down their bolters to siphon that sweet alien juice from the pillar, but tac marines give up their superdoctrine buffed shooting! That's a disadvantage for the tac marines, right? I can't see any flaws in that reasoning, can you?

Then the other problem is they want to push primaris, so they're going to skew the pts to make primaris the better choice. If CSM have to be strictly worse than tac marines and tac marines have to strictly worse than primaris you can see why that might be a problem for CSM.

I can understand the “primaris need to be better than tactics” reasoning, the “tactics need to be better than csm” however wich is the basis of your argument is not based on anything but your opinion.

**ClockworkZion**

Ice_can wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.

If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.

No they don't, not in the slightest. An in built game mechanic for both players to generate CP in the Command Phase is mutually exclusive to any ability that allowes you to regain CP's after using stratagems or abilities that grant you extra CP (most of which happen before the game begins).

I have absolutely no idea how anyone could ever think that the existence of 1 mechanic automatically forces out the existense of all of the others, thats just daft.

You have total misread the conversation.
Clockwork said "both players get the same CP each turn"

That statement is either true and all exsisting ways to generate CP mid turn are gone, or his statementis incorrect.

I said that in relation to the Command Phase. Nothing GW has shown negates abilities to generate CP in other manners outside of that phase.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Because they're the good guys they're still trying to sell more of, duh.

**ClockworkZion**

CSM can be good if given the right rules to support them, even if they're not 1:1 with Primaris. They just need Legion rules that aren't crap.

**gorgon**

The Newman wrote:
Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.

That's an old, dumb canard.

If one was to redesign 40K for competitive play, one of the first steps would almost certainly be culling a large percentage of the datasheets, stratagems, special rules, etc. The vast scope of the game makes it far too unwieldy for true balance to be achievable. Which would ultimately impact the experience of narrative players.

The game is what it is.

**Not Online!!!**

ClockworkZion wrote:
CSM can be good if given the right rules to support them, even if they're not 1:1 with Primaris. They just need Legion rules that aren't crap.

even with the access to a unnerfed -1 to hit you don't see them though.

there are a few nutjobs like me that run them in RC to overwhelm the opponent with recycling but i don't need to explain why that in essence is playing with a handicap of about 200-400 pts depending on how close i can get max recycling happen. And even then as soon as the Tac doctrine shows up it isn't even a competition anymore.

**Galas**

the_scotsman wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.

Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.

I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.

Yeah, it is funny how for some reason fantasy players have never really had this issue with morale abstractions that include gak like freaking skeletons, yet every 40k player ever gets insanely butthurt if you say that morale rules would apply to *insert faction here down to and including Guardsmen afraid of a man in a big hat or standing near a priest*.

The same could be said about using "death" historical figures. In Fantasy 70% of the special characters were "death" on the present, like most greenskin ones as Azhag or Gromp the Paunch or Gorbadd.

I think the problem comes from the fluff. In Fantasy even the most brave of races like dwarfs and elfs are ... mortal people living in a "mortal" world so they can feel fear because they actually have respect for their own lives (Expect slayers or things like that) . But when in 40k everything is so exagerated and you have movie egiptian terminators fighting agaisnt crazy fanatics that would sacrifice themselves willingly agaisnt indoctrinated supersoldiers that KNOW NO FEAR that are 70% of the playerbase and even your mortal factions like guardsmen and Tau are SUPER indoctrinated or have guys that shot them in the head and just with that NO RETREATING! it creates a disconection with how people sees their army. Thats why I think people that want morale to matter in 40k are in the wrong universe.

**the_scotsman**

Galas wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.

Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.

I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.

Yeah, it is funny how for some reason fantasy players have never really had this issue with morale abstractions that include gak like freaking skeletons, yet every 40k player ever gets insanely butthurt if you say that morale rules would apply to *insert faction here down to and including Guardsmen afraid of a man in a big hat or standing near a priest*.

The same could be said about using "death" historical figures. In Fantasy 70% of the special characters were "death" on the present, like most greenskin ones as Azhag or Gromp the Paunch or Gorbadd.

I think the problem comes from the fluff. In Fantasy even the most brave of races like dwarfs and elfs are ... mortal people living in a "mortal" world so they can feel fear because they actually have respect for their own lives (Expect slayers or things like that) . But when in 40k everything is so exagerated and you have movie egiptian terminators fighting agaisnt crazy fanatics that would sacrifice themselves willingly agaisnt indoctrinated supersoldiers that KNOW NO FEAR that are 70% of the playerbase and even your mortal factions like guardsmen and Tau are SUPER indoctrinated or have guys that shot them in the head and just with that NO RETREATING! it creates a disconection with how people sees their army. Thats why I think people that want morale to matter in 40k are in the wrong universe.

When GW puts unit after unit after unit after whole damn faction after stratagem after psychic power into the game that is based around "Causing fear" and "destroying morale" you sure as gak better think some people are going to want to play with that playstyle.

This is like the idiots that say Tau shouldn't exist and GW should just squat them and people who play Tau are just bad weeaboos that want to play something that isn't in the game.

Of course it's in the damn game. GW, the company that makes the game, put it there! People wanting to get to use the mechanics and units that GW put in the game are not the problem here.

**Galas**

Thats what I don't understand. Is like GW can't make a mind about that.

1st) They write a fluff for a universe were morale is largely irrelevant except for when night lords appear on screen that THEY ARE SO TERRYFING OMG but nowhere else.
2nd)They write a ton of subfaction and rules based around playing with morale to destroy your enemies
3rd) They make morale extremely marginal and very easy to just ignore even with the more morale-vulnerable armies
4th) ????¿¿¿¿
5th) Profit.

**Sunny Side Up**

Galas wrote:
Thats what I don't understand. Is like GW can't make a mind about that.

1st) They write a fluff for a universe were morale is largely irrelevant except for when night lords appear on screen that THEY ARE SO TERRYFING OMG but nowhere else.
2nd)They write a ton of subfaction and rules based around playing with morale to destroy your enemies
3rd) They make morale extremely marginal and very easy to just ignore even with the more morale-vulnerable armies
4th) ????¿¿¿¿
5th) Profit.

Well, to an extend it's an arbitrary negative that can be used to give armies / players "cool stuff" to off-set it.

You could not have LD in the game and inversely not have "fearless" rules such as Synapse or Ork Morale-whatever or Deathwing-stuff, etc..

Or you could have LD in the game as a "hypothetical problem" and make players happy about having a "cool rule" that ignores it.

For a more minimal, "gamer's" or "competitive game" like, dunno, Shadespire or Kill Team Arena, you probably leave it out to reduce the clutter. For their more "narrative" range of games like 40K or AoS, it adds narrative texture, even if it doesn't impact game play all that much.

**alextroy**

tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka

Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.

That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.

If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.

It's hard to just too much from two data points. Both units cost when up and they say all units cost when up. But how much? If Tactical Marines go up to 14 points, they look much better compared to Intercessors than they do today.

An while Marines had a very high win rate that was before the Doctrines nerf. That was barely in effect before Corona put an end to tournament play. I do recall the marine win rate dropping after the nerf, especially for Iron Hands, but the dataset there was small.

So don't panic until there is more information. If most infantry models go up 2 points per model, but Intercessors when up 4, that a downgrade to Intercessors even if the % of change is less than for some units.

**the_scotsman**

Galas wrote:
Thats what I don't understand. Is like GW can't make a mind about that.

1st) They write a fluff for a universe were morale is largely irrelevant except for when night lords appear on screen that THEY ARE SO TERRYFING OMG but nowhere else.
2nd)They write a ton of subfaction and rules based around playing with morale to destroy your enemies
3rd) They make morale extremely marginal and very easy to just ignore even with the more morale-vulnerable armies
4th) ????¿¿¿¿
5th) Profit.

Solution: fluff does not have to equal gameplay. Morale is an interesting, fun dynamic for a wargame that allows you to inhibit a unit's effectiveness in more ways than just killing it.

Space marines don't have poison melee attacks, and don't gain benefits for their whateverthefeth dumb glands and gak, give them increased LD compared to guardsmen for their "knowing no fear" and leave it at that. Not everything in the universe HAS to cater to marine players' egos. If AOS can have morale rules for skeletons, 40k can have morale for robots.

**Galas**

I don't disagree with that, I just believe 40k rules writters can't make one mind about how they want morale to work on their game.

**punisher357**

gorgon wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.

That's an old, dumb canard.

If one was to redesign 40K for competitive play, one of the first steps would almost certainly be culling a large percentage of the datasheets, stratagems, special rules, etc. The vast scope of the game makes it far too unwieldy for true balance to be achievable. Which would ultimately impact the experience of narrative players.

The game is what it is.

100% correct. Perfect balance is boring. Things that people believe are perfectly balanced, usually aren't. It seems to me that people want the illusion of balance, similar to chess. It appears balanced, but it's not. Whoever gets first turn has an advantage. However, it's not a huge "unfair" advantage. Chess is BORING!

WARNING! SUBJECTIVE OPINION AHEAD! Feel free to ignore or skip this part

Spoiler:

My perspective is this: I'm not big on fluff. I know enough to get an idea for the armies I like, but I don't know their extensive histories. I know the general story line and that's enough for me. I look at the way the game plays and I like the strategic component of it. I'm invested in my armies and their feel, but I think if people could slightly compartmentalize their love of the fluff and the rich world it creates from the mechanics of the game, they would be less (insert adjective here) annoyed/irritated/aggravated/disappointed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't get into the stories, the narrative, the ideas, the universe, but you should temper your expectations when translating that into game-play mechanics. Honestly, if more people would create their own house rules for the game, units, etc. I think they might have a better understanding of how hard it is. It might cut down on so much of the knee jerk reactions I see taking place.

There's something more to 40k than just the mechanical bones of it though. There's something magic. I think part of it is the IGOUGO turn sequence, it adds the feel of commanding an army. Instead of throwing knives, you're swinging a sledge hammer. It creates the need for more preemptive decisions, rather than reactions. I really like it, but it's not for everyone. The game sizes with lots of models is another aspect that I really enjoy too. It adds to the feel, along with great looking terrain.

The vast number of factions/armies, units, weapons, and components of the game make it difficult to balance, but it also makes it interesting. The random component of some mechanics and weapons adds flavor like seasoning to food. Too much and it doesn't taste good, too little and it's bland. Some of the most memorable and fun moments I've had in this game came from a crazy dice roll that resulted in the improbable occurring. IT.....WAS....EPIC! This is the only game I've played where I have just as much fun losing as I do winning. I have enough fun that the game is worth the money, worth the time, worth the (sometimes) aggravation and disappointment. Maybe that's not true for someone else. Maybe it's not true for you.

Could GW do better with balance? Yes. Are they doing better? YES! We need to remember that they've just started turning over a new leaf. I think people have quickly forgotten it wasn't too long ago that there wasn't a way to communicate with the company/designers, it wasn't that long ago that we were basically told, "If you don't like it, go hang. We're a model company, not a game company." Not to mention, the company was constantly taking legal action against anyone that leaked information or posted stats, etc. Not too far in the past, I remember games where you spent a good portion of the time looking up rules while you were playing. The rulebook was an encyclopedia and it took a week of reading before you could start playing.

We're on a good path. I want to enjoy the ride. I AM enjoying the ride!

The new CP mechanic looks good from what I've seen. You'll need to be more selective with your CP, which is good in my book. I'm even excited to try the crusade rules. I'm sure they aren't perfect and there will be flaws, but that's not the end of the world.

I'm really wondering how the blast mechanic will work and how the vehicles/monsters shooting while in combat is going to play out. It's a pretty exciting time.

Just curios, is the general consensus that everyone wants the box set? I know I'm planning on grabbing one.

**Ghaz**

Today's video is on Command Points.

**Latro_**

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer
stream is live - topic cmd pts

first morcel: only core detachments - patrol, bat, brig give you a refund on the CP to buy it and only if WL is in it.

Anything else costs CP, so you take abby and termies in a vanguard, its ye entire army it still costs CP for that detachemtn

----

mortal wounds (based on number of models you flee from) on people falling back from combat core strat

---

some missions give you CP in the command phase

That is literally all i can tell thats new info in the whole talk

**the_scotsman**

So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.

Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.

it's strange, I seem to recall that elite-based armies have been pretty much dominant throughout the edition, there's just been a tiny fraction of the points of the list overall dedicated to a cheap screen to soak up alpha strikes and generate CP. So now they've really turned the meta on its head by allowing someone to take their super beefed up elite army and not have to spend 300-odd points on some min-sized chaff units.

Truly revolutionary. I for one am greatly excited to meet the new boss, who I am assured is entirely different from the old boss.

**ClockworkZion**

- notes by Joe#0064 on the Warhammer 40K Discord.

===== RULES =====

- broadly speaking, they still work the same as in earlier editions - spending them on strategems, placing units in strategic reserves, etc. Major changes are in how you earn them.

- new edition inverts it; command points are now based on the size of the game you are playing. 3CPs at 500PTS, 6CPs at 1000PTS, 12CPs at 2000PTs, 18CPs at 3000PTs.

- In some missions, you'll receive additional command points during the Command Phase, helping to spread them out across the course of the game.

- detachments cost CPs, however your warlord can refund the cost if he's in the core detachment - you can also pay for detachments from allied factions.

- factions have specific army-rules that interact with command point generation.

- Transports have been tweaked - they no longer take up slots, and one can be taken for /every/ infantry unit in the army.

- all new Matched Play rules are carrying over.

**Darsath**

the_scotsman wrote:
So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.

Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.

That seems more of an issue with Space Marines to be fair. Of course, they'll be even better once the new edition hits.