9th edition is already dead in the water (IGO/UGO)

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.

**VladimirHerzog**

ClockworkZion wrote:

ITC invented the tripoint tactic...

ITC didnt invent it, competitive players looking to make melee work did, and GW accepted it as an official tactic. with the amount of no downside fallback that many armies have access to nowadays, its sad that what many consider a "loophole" in the rules is a required tactic.

I've had many people complain and argue with me the first time i used that on them

**Gadzilla666**

Martel732 wrote:But GW didn't errata it or address it. And their rules allowed it in the first place.

And what makes you think tri-pointing will be gone in 9th? I've not heard it mentioned in any of the previous streams.

Karol wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Well, the overwatch is changing, that much we know.

Also, the first turn lethality seems to be going down.

Is this going to be the magical fix needed for 40K? Difficult to say without details.

I wonder how GW is going to do it. It would be real nice if they do it right. But if it is just some blanket rule that makes interaction between armies on turn one very low, then we are just pushing the alfa striking to turn 2, and that would hardly be a fix.

Wouldn't change anything for me. Turn two is where the Eighth Legion goes to work.

**Martel732**

I'm hoping its gone because its awful.

**catbarf**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In Space Marine, each unit could be issued one of four orders. First Fire, Advance and Charge were your options, with Fall Back being a compulsory one if your unit was broken.

Each offered certain perks, and were assigned face down. Next, Orders were revealed. From there, each unit was tied to certain actions. First Fire meant as the name suggests, but you couldn’t move. Charge meant double movement, no shooting, but could start a HTH fight. Advance offered standard movement, and shooting after FF had been resolved. I can’t quite recall the exact order they were resolved in, but each set of orders was resolved in turn, on a AA basis.

The net result was pretty excellent. A canny player was one with a solid grasp of that system, and better able to predict what the foe was aiming to do.

But it also meant that I couldn’t wait and see how my Unit A fared before deciding what I wanted to do with Unit B. If I had say, two Devastor Squads with First Fire, looking to take out say, a unit of Falcon Grav Tanks? If the first unit got the job done, it was entirely possible the second squad had nothing else to usefully do that turn.

Sadly memory does not serve to recall the exact turn sequence for Orders. And hey, it’s been at least 24 years since I last had a game! But those Orders made the difference, and added a wonderful depth to proceedings.

FWIW, this is almost exactly the set of orders used in Apocalypse, except that instead of the equivalent to First Fire letting you fire first, it lets you shoot at +1 to hit when activated. The orders are also given to formations, not individual units.

It's a simple and quick system that works quite well. I would be quite happy to see something like that come back to 40K. YMMV.

**Grey40k**

I like that they explicitely said that they are attempting to kill gamey situations with the new rules.

**the_scotsman**

Galas wrote:
The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.

Well, at the very least GW's Kill Point system seems a little less asinine than "destroy units."

it's 1 point per model, 10 points for...something, could be Vehicle or Monster or something like that.

Obviously, still tilted toward horde killing but at least not maybe quite as dumb as kill points by unit? IDK. actually, probably not. Just more tedious to track. At least 30 orks /= 10 orks.

**Not Online!!!**

the_scotsman wrote:
Galas wrote:
The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.

Well, at the very least GW's Kill Point system seems a little less asinine than "destroy units."

it's 1 point per model, 10 points for...something, could be Vehicle or Monster or something like that.

Obviously, still tilted toward horde killing but at least not maybe quite as dumb as kill points by unit? IDK. actually, probably not. Just more tedious to track. At least 30 orks /= 10 orks.

because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?

**Martel732**

Hordes are still very powerful in CA 2019 missions.

**the_scotsman**

Not Online!!! wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Galas wrote:
The worst thing about ITC missions is when they make certain units bad because "they give secondaries too easely". That was never a problem with CA missions and I hope they have revised secondaries to avoid that.

Well, at the very least GW's Kill Point system seems a little less asinine than "destroy units."

it's 1 point per model, 10 points for...something, could be Vehicle or Monster or something like that.

Obviously, still tilted toward horde killing but at least not maybe quite as dumb as kill points by unit? IDK. actually, probably not. Just more tedious to track. At least 30 orks /= 10 orks.

because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?

disposable footslogging screening units that generate CP have been strong pretty much throughout 8th until GW literally slam dunked the new marine codexes into the game, a move I am beginning to suspect may have at least partially been to drum up interest in marines and dissatisfaction with the balance of 8th, which may have been a little too good to justify dropping a new edition.

It's hard to imagine releasing the marine supplements without understanding at least on some level that these are head-and-shoulders better than everything they're up against.

**Gadzilla666**

But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.

**the_scotsman**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.

Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.

We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?

**Martel732**

I also wonder if they can fix AT guns. I doubt it...

**the_scotsman**

Martel732 wrote:
I also wonder if they can fix AT guns. I doubt it...

I would bet single-shot antitank weaponry ends up in a worse state than it is now with increased access to cover for more models. I'm also fairly certain that cover isn't just going to add to your armor save as well. The natural penalty would be to to-hit rolls, which frontloads the chance that the shot will fail, further disincentivizing taking regular antitank weaponry in favor of stuff like high-ROF stuff that causes mortal wounds on a natural 6 or junk like that.

**Siegfriedfr**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.

Yeah basically no armies needed their pts value going up except marines... it seems that they are abandoning all pretense of balance, and are only focusing on selling as many marine models as possible now.

**Martel732**

I was momentarily hopeful. Damn you and your truth.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.
Yeah basically no armies needed their pts value going up except marines... it seems that they are abandoning all pretense of balance, and are only focusing on selling as many marine models as possible now.

Marines didn't need it either, they needed rules taken away. Intercessors at 10pt/W are very unattractive. I'll take the 12 pt oldbois.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Martel732 wrote:
I also wonder if they can fix AT guns. I doubt it...

Fixed damage of some kind would be a giant start.

**Martel732**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I also wonder if they can fix AT guns. I doubt it...

Fixed damage of some kind would be a giant start.

Gotta get past a lot of points of failure before I worry about the damage.

**Slayer-Fan123**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I guess that's all about to become moot.

Hmm. So are you actually happy about something gw has done for once?

Yes, they actually accepted the reality of the popularity of secondary missions. I didn't think it was possible.

Yes, it sucks that ITC tanked a few units, but GW turned my list into codex: tripoint. Which is worse?

ITC invented the tripoint tactic...

Tournaments in general invented it because melee sucks because Fallback was a mechanic created for no good reason.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I also wonder if they can fix AT guns. I doubt it...

Fixed damage of some kind would be a giant start.

Gotta get past a lot of points of failure before I worry about the damage.

While true, if a Lascannon hits, wounds, and gets through a save if there is one...why should I ROLL damage at that point. A strict D4 or even D5 would go a long way to making them dangerous to big stuff and characters (since Marine variants laugh at the DD6 currently).

**Sgt_Smudge**

Martel732 wrote:
Intercessors at 10pt/W are very unattractive. I'll take the 12 pt oldbois.

Where does it say that old Marines are 12 points? Unless I'm missing something?

**Gadzilla666**

the_scotsman wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.

Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.

We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?

I said at the start. Just reading the signs. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.

**Strg Alt**

Manchu wrote:
Drachii wrote:
Dear lord this really is peak dakka, isn't it?
OP is being hyperbolic, clearly. But there are people who are put off by IGO/UGO design; that’s a totally legitimate point of discussion.

Yeah, alternate activation would have been the most important mechanic to implement. Alas, it won't come to pass.
9th will be a lazy copy/paste job of 8th with a few changes sprinkled for the sake of change. Nothing more, nothing less. Another grand opportunity for GW to milk it's customer's purses.

**Nurglitch**

I'd bet classic SMs are going back to 15ppm.

**catbarf**

Without knowing what cost adjustments everything else is going, lamenting how fragile 20pt Intercessors will be seems extremely premature.

**Spoletta**

Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

**Karol**

Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.

**Not Online!!!**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.

Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.

We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?

I said at the start. Just reading the signs. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.

I mean the Info we have atleast for me gives me second thoughts.

We know that vigilus and PA remain, through that we know how the factions atleast initially will play .
We know the cp now which is a trickle plus gamesize.
We also know that Performance of Units will not really Change except in regards to points .

I am cautiously optimistic still because fixed cp and trickle were things i really wanted, if the stratagems were rebalanced accordingly per faction which we as of yet have no indication that that happened.
This is my Main point of concern , well that and Basically Siting another Edition out for my r&h but that is another Story.

**Eldarain**

Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.

We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.

**Not Online!!!**

Pretty much sums up my sentiment Eldarain.

**Grey40k**

Eldarain wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.

We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.

Why wouldn't giving VP per actual value in points killed work?

**BaconCatBug**

Grey40k wrote:
Eldarain wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.

We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.

Why wouldn't giving VP per actual value in points killed work?

Because killing 6 points of Cultist is not the same as killing 6 points of Custodes.