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.

So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"

Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.

Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.

 Sim-Life wrote:
So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"

Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.

Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.

Sure they're coming. I don't think they'll be a big deal.

Take Bobby - he adds 3CP until you realize he requires his own detachment. Tigurius adds 2 CP, but then you're forcing yourself out of successors.

There will be a fine line to walk. They don't always walk it well, but if they goof it'll get sorted.

You are not alone. I actually enjoyed 8th over-all, but have been largely disappointed by what we've seen so far. I feel 9th will be game that is more complex (in a bad way) and actually takes LONGER to play. On top of that, for things like overwatch, my first thought was "And I bet Loyalist marines, Tau, Craftworld Eldar, and possible 'Crons will, to some extent, completely ignore that rule." That's the direction they've taken with Marines in general. I say this as a marine player, but it's like they looked at our first 8th ed book and said "Why isn't this working?", made a list of the rules in 8th that were "hurting" marines, and then released a series of books with units and strats that just let them completely ignore those things and VIOLA! #GAMEDESIGN!

I fear this trend will only get worse as we go ... WHich is weird because, except for the amount of rerolls, I was really positive throughout most of 8th. Something about the way they've handled this sudden transition just isn't sitting well I guess.

I don't see more than one or two units or weapons per faction getting the unlimited overwatch.

Probably just flamers.

AoS too has models with "Overwatch", but they are really rare and usually need to roll a 4+ to do it.

I hate to say it but so far I'm seeing a lot of rules that while on the surface seem like good changes the outstanding issue is points for models is still an unknown and what little we have seen isn't giving me great feeling of GW have understood why units that cost X & Z are taken but unitd Y isnt.

Ironically it seems like they have targeted the units/codex's most complained about 18 months ago and written core rules that render them seriously disadvantaged. Digging themselves out of that is going to be sucking up a big pill of Reeeing from many or those codex's will be flat broken for all of 9th.

Ice_can wrote:
I hate to say it but so far I'm seeing a lot of rules that while on the surface seem like good changes the outstanding issue is points for models is still an unknown and what little we have seen isn't giving me great feeling of GW have understood why units that cost X & Z are taken but unitd Y isnt.

Ironically it seems like they have targeted the units/codex's most complained about 18 months ago and written core rules that render them seriously disadvantaged. Digging themselves out of that is going to be sucking up a big pill of Reeeing from many or those codex's will be flat broken for all of 9th.

Could you elaborate a bit more?

At the moment we only know points for 3 units.

I give this edition 1,5-2 years until GW starts to add Codex books that ignore most of the yet new core rules

and in 2,5-3 years this will be an entire different game because most factions just play around the core restrictions and people start asking for a new edition to solve those problems

You're not alone. At the least Marines will get overrides for any and every rule. Each army will get a subsection they can ignore - morale [IG], cover [Tau], extra CP [Eldar], etc.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I hate to say it but so far I'm seeing a lot of rules that while on the surface seem like good changes the outstanding issue is points for models is still an unknown and what little we have seen isn't giving me great feeling of GW have understood why units that cost X & Z are taken but unitd Y isnt.

Ironically it seems like they have targeted the units/codex's most complained about 18 months ago and written core rules that render them seriously disadvantaged. Digging themselves out of that is going to be sucking up a big pill of Reeeing from many or those codex's will be flat broken for all of 9th.

Could you elaborate a bit more?

At the moment we only know points for 3 units.

Sorry I mean without seeing all the points for units I dont know if GW have really understood what th3 combined effects of their previewed rules means for specifically the armies I play the way I play them.

So far the rules seem to punish anyone who doesn't want to be in CC, LoW are banned from benefiting from cover, Multiple Dx weapons are helped less by blast weapons that double shooting a Dx weapon, move and shoot without penalty dor vehicals helps those that didn't have it but those that did I doubt will see points drops to compensate.

So far the Points of Intercessors, Warrior's and conscripts still feel like the favour marine's. Warrior's I never really encountered in 8th, conscripts I did but they died out bar some odd 1 massive unit or such with the points increases.
Intercessors went up in a way that doesn't jive with how dang powerful they are in 8th and nothing so far says they are getting worse, if thats the way marines have gone it's still going to be 6 months to a year of Marines vrs Marines as the meta.

Unless the points previews so far are misleading I'm not holding out much hope anymore that we wont have an edition so out of balance CA 2021 is going to need to hand out some crazy poinra drops to make certain codex's worth putting on the table.

Hmm, it's really hard to say how the game will shape up. The fact alone that the focus of the game has been moved to turn 3, makes everything different.

Spoletta wrote:
Hmm, it's really hard to say how the game will shape up. The fact alone that the focus of the game has been moved to turn 3, makes everything different.

I really like that potential shift. Honestly I can't wait to play some games.

Spoletta wrote:
Probably just flamers.

I'm also hoping to see some major improvements for flamer weapons.

I don't see the problem with this? Isn't this a perfectly valid way to add new mechanics and gameplay variety to the game?

Of course this is in abstract. If executed poorly, it could be bad (shocking, I know)

The point of any unit rule that's needs to be spelled out on a datasheet is to break the core rules...or it wouldn't need to be written.

Ignoring rules is a core part to how this game, and almost all of its kind actually work. Asking them to never do this would put the game in a very chess like state, where a datasheet would only ever be a stat line and nothing more.

Umbros wrote:
I don't see the problem with this? Isn't this a perfectly valid way to add new mechanics and gameplay variety to the game?

Of course this is in abstract. If executed poorly, it could be bad (shocking, I know)

There are already LOADS of rules exceptions in the game. Adding more rules adds more exceptions and interactions to the point where the game becomes increasingly bloated and complicated.

 Sim-Life wrote:
So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"

When's the 1st 9th ed Codex dropping?

I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential. Because of my particular playstyle, if the get Crusade right, other minor flaws will be really, really easy for me to overlook.

Man I love having missions written for 500 point, 1k point, etc- and LOTS for each to boot!

The customizability of terrain looks awesome to me- I can't wait to assign traits to my themed campaign terrain- the time and attention I'm taking to build detailed interiors for stackable
multilevel buildings, or buildings with breakaway battle damage will actually mean something in game! Traits assigned mid game as a result of battle damage in special missions is also something I'm looking forward to trying out.

Levelling the CP field AND giving us so many things we can do with CP! Do you hate strategems and think they ruined 8th? Do you hate using them because you feel complicit in a system you hate?

Well now you can spend them to subfaction soup so that all of your shooty units get the best shooty SF trait and all of your close combat units get the best CC SF trait. Worried about your Knight getting executed if you don't win first turn? Bring it in as a reserve and shoot. You could make meaningful and strategic choices with your CP without playing a single strat.

Shooty armies can protect themselves from being surrounded for one unit per turn and their tanks aren't just bait for cheap tarpits anymore.

Flyers don't magically blow up when they reach a table edge! Even better, this is indicative of flyer awesomeness going forward- every army that doesn't already have an Aircraft is going to get one. I've wanted an Aircraft for Sororitas since they were introduced to the game. I feel far more confident than I ever have that it's really going to happen.

I suspect this edition will be fabulous for Xenos- Necrons have already started the ball rolling, and I think love is coming for the guard too. There will, of course be some marine releases, but beyond the opening salvo, I think they already have so much that there's room for a lot of other factions to grow, especially during the first year.

I've kinda meandered from OP, so to address the specific concerns about exceptions: existing exceptions are going to be the hardest to deal with because a) they all have to be addressed on launch day b) a FAQ is the only tool which will allow them to do that.

It is going to be painful. Exceptions which are now global may find themselves becoming conditional, some may be assigned costs, and still others will disappear or become limited to a few units.

But once the existing ones are hammered into the new shape, I think the rules previewed so far are setting us up for exceptions which are limited or conditional.

I could be wrong, of course; we have a fair bit of information, but certainly not enough to pass judgement yet. But I've seen more that gives me hope than I've seen that takes it away.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.

I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.

We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.

I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.

We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.

I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.

GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.

Haha. 7th ed started out being bloated with USRs and just got worse.

Well fine, sometimes it starts out bad and gets even worse.

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.

Haha. 7th ed started out being bloated with USRs and just got worse.

That's cause it was just 6th with a very slightly new coat of paint and a PR spin.

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.

When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?

There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.

When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?

There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.

I think they've made changes for the better. I think we as a community can help them continue to make those changes, some of this stuff that has been revealed for 9th edition is stuff I have literally discussed in emails I sent to the rules team. Not word for word, obviously. But the general ideas. I know I'm not the only one who sends those emails, that alone means they're llama to us as a group.

Will this be the best edition ever? I don't know. But I can tell you this, I played a heck of a lot of 40K during the 8th run. 6 months before 8th came out, I was so frustrated with the game I quit, sold my armies and invested in HH. I played HH and had a lot of fun with it.

When 8th launched, I saw an opportunity to start fresh and I evened my collections, joined back in with 8th and in less than four months I'd left HH permanently. I've had more fun, more zany stories and more even matches this edition than any other before it.

Since 9th is going to be 8th, but more refined, I can safely say that I believe my good luck and fun will continue. Like one of the other posters in this thread said, I'm excited about terrain. I went to my local store today, put my mask on and used their new snazzy no-touch door handle to go inside. I got for the first time some terrain of my own and I cannot wait to start building it, designing it and putting it to work. I see the potential, and I couldn't be happier.

Yes, there are some things I hope to see. I hope to see Guard, Eldar and Tyranids get their updates, not just rules but models too. I want to see more focus locally on campaigns. I hope that many groups can find fun ways to build their armies and not just have to sit and play the same three units in some combination like everyone else.

Before the ink is dry on the rule-book...

 Sim-Life wrote:
So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"

Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.

Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.

Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.

Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.

I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.

We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.

I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.

Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.

Sim-LifeMade wrote:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?

No time at all. They already have.

The new Marine and Necron 'dexes will have rules that ignore all the new stuff.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sim-LifeMade wrote:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?

No time at all. They already have.

The new Marine and Necron 'dexes will have rules that ignore all the new stuff.

Mmm, yea, hopefully it isn't an arms race again.

in my opinion the LOS rules and function of terrain were so badly implemented in 8th that it really made me pack my stuff away and not bother unless my friends and I were playing City Fight (which is a great rules set and should be more widely played!!). All of the changes thus far, warts and all, seem be improvements - however incremental that may be. Lots of speculation still and maybe there will be a nasty surprise once it lands, but at the very least the decimation of entire units because you can see one guards arm through multiple different ruin windows traced across the map is *somewhat* addressed.

I haven't been glass half-full about GW in uhh a decade. And I am not yet (because they keep releasing more space marines instead of updating other factions, which is BIG RED FLAG), but compared to the dark ages of 6 & 7 editions....the game is in much better shape.

 Argive wrote:
Before the ink is dry on the rule-book...

"Morale will be significantly more important this edition."

"On a totally unrelated note, here's a new marine character who's role is to keep marines' morale up..."