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 I see a lot of people on the forums right now in various states of either distress or excitement about the current state of warhammer. And i think it's really important right now to simply calm down and be patient for a lot of reasons.
We're in a really weird spot right now. We have a lot of rules and information about 9th edition out and about, but I would like to remind everyone that none of the codexes have come out yet. We're in the "index era" of the current edition, and it is really too early to make judgment about most things. I mean, we all remember how bad things were in the 8th edition index era, right? I've seen people talking, sometimes rather heatedly, about how "x faction is going to be underpowered, y option is going to be completely broken" and I would just like to say that while discussion is well and good(not to mention the point of the forums), it's too early in the game to be freaking out right now. We don't know when the next xenos release is going to be, we don't know if said releases are going to be big and awesome and exciting or disappointing, we don't know if Necrons/Marines will be broken one way or the other, we don't know if it's going to be just marines forever and ever with no end in sight (but to be fair that is looking pretty likely at this point). For all we know they could drop an equally big release for, say, Eldar next month. Not likely, but the point is that we should wait and see at this point.
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, I'm saying we shouldn't despair when we haven't even touched the books yet. I, for one, choose to remain optimistic. It might be blasphemy for me to say this, but GW has proven they can listen to fans, and they have proven they can make sound decisions. Whether or not they do is up in the air, but we shouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.
Sorry about the wall of text. Please be good to each other on here and everywhere else, and remember to follow the forum rules!

 CommanderWalrus wrote:

We're in a really weird spot right now. We have a lot of rules and information about 9th edition out and about, but I would like to remind everyone that none of the codexes have come out yet. We're in the "index era" of the current edition, and it is really too early to make judgment about most things.

Is it worth mentioning that we could easily have all the rules if GW didn't insist on forcing people to pay through the nose for them?

Pretty much every other wargame I'm aware of has free, downloadable rules. If GW went that route, they could release the rules for every faction right at the start of each edition - because they wouldn't have to be (re)printing entire codices for each faction.

Furthermore, it would allow GW to still do gradual model releases, without even having to worry about being beaten to the post by 3rd party manufacturers - as they could simply add new dataslates to the online rules (which is a lot trickier when you're expecting people to purchase physical rulebooks).

I mean, they could still sell some rulebooks for those who want all the extra fluff (or who just prefer physical rules), but it wouldn't matter as much if different factions got their physical books later in the edition.


I know it's not exactly what you were talking about. However, when someone defends GW by saying 'we don't know all the rules yet', it seems reasonable to ask 'well whose fault is that?'.

Seems odd for GW to do what their less-successful competitors are doing, rather than following their own recipe for success.

 vipoid wrote:

 CommanderWalrus wrote:

We're in a really weird spot right now. We have a lot of rules and information about 9th edition out and about, but I would like to remind everyone that none of the codexes have come out yet. We're in the "index era" of the current edition, and it is really too early to make judgment about most things.

Is it worth mentioning that we could easily have all the rules if GW didn't insist on forcing people to pay through the nose for them?

Pretty much every other wargame I'm aware of has free, downloadable rules. If GW went that route, they could release the rules for every faction right at the start of each edition - because they wouldn't have to be (re)printing entire codices for each faction.

Furthermore, it would allow GW to still do gradual model releases, without even having to worry about being beaten to the post by 3rd party manufacturers - as they could simply add new dataslates to the online rules (which is a lot trickier when you're expecting people to purchase physical rulebooks).

I mean, they could still sell some rulebooks for those who want all the extra fluff (or who just prefer physical rules), but it wouldn't matter as much if different factions got their physical books later in the edition.


I know it's not exactly what you were talking about. However, when someone defends GW by saying 'we don't know all the rules yet', it seems reasonable to ask 'well whose fault is that?'.

It is a good point, and I do think it's completely ridiculous exactly how many books you need, a number that increases constantly. It could be so much easier if GW was willing to release rules a little faster and maybe for a little cheaper, i agree.
It is worth noting that I'm not exactly defending GW, so kuch as just trying to caution fellow fans to not speak too soon.

 CommanderWalrus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 CommanderWalrus wrote:

We're in a really weird spot right now. We have a lot of rules and information about 9th edition out and about, but I would like to remind everyone that none of the codexes have come out yet. We're in the "index era" of the current edition, and it is really too early to make judgment about most things.

Is it worth mentioning that we could easily have all the rules if GW didn't insist on forcing people to pay through the nose for them?

Pretty much every other wargame I'm aware of has free, downloadable rules. If GW went that route, they could release the rules for every faction right at the start of each edition - because they wouldn't have to be (re)printing entire codices for each faction.

Furthermore, it would allow GW to still do gradual model releases, without even having to worry about being beaten to the post by 3rd party manufacturers - as they could simply add new dataslates to the online rules (which is a lot trickier when you're expecting people to purchase physical rulebooks).

I mean, they could still sell some rulebooks for those who want all the extra fluff (or who just prefer physical rules), but it wouldn't matter as much if different factions got their physical books later in the edition.


I know it's not exactly what you were talking about. However, when someone defends GW by saying 'we don't know all the rules yet', it seems reasonable to ask 'well whose fault is that?'.

It is a good point, and I do think it's completely ridiculous exactly how many books you need, a number that increases constantly. It could be so much easier if GW was willing to release rules a little faster and maybe for a little cheaper, i agree.
It is worth noting that I'm not exactly defending GW, so kuch as just trying to caution fellow fans to not speak too soon.

"WHY WON'T THEY GIVE ME FREE STUUUUF!"
isn't a good point. we've GOT the rules right now, 8th and 9th are cross compatable. most of the complaints about rules are people jumping to the gun about upcoming products, ones they have incomplete info about.

Here, OP, have an exalt for being a good person.
I'm fully agreed - I have my concerns, and I'm all too happy to voice them here, after all debating the possibilities is fun - but I do find the attitude of writing off the edition already incredibly silly.

Is it worth mentioning that we could easily have all the rules if GW didn't insist on forcing people to pay through the nose for them?

What you're missing here is that many other companies need to give rules out for free in order to boost sales in the first place, where they need to entice people and pique their interest.
I'm sure some have looked at the possibility of charging for a rulebook, then realising either that it would end up costing them sales, or that getting the printing and publishing sorted would be more effort than it's worth. GW has neither problem.

Hahahahahhahhahahahahahahaaa. Oh buddy, someoe get ClockworkZion in here. Talk about broken records! This website is quite the meme sometimes.

9th edition will be ending, and people will assert that we should at least wait for them to try to fix it in 10th before "getting all doom and gloom."

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Hahahahahhahhahahahahahahaaa. Oh buddy, someoe get ClockworkZion in here. Talk about broken records! This website is quite the meme sometimes.

9th edition will be ending, and people will assert that we should at least wait for them to try to fix it in 10th before "getting all doom and gloom."

Be nice now, all I'm saying is that we are don't have anything close to the whole story here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 CommanderWalrus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 CommanderWalrus wrote:

We're in a really weird spot right now. We have a lot of rules and information about 9th edition out and about, but I would like to remind everyone that none of the codexes have come out yet. We're in the "index era" of the current edition, and it is really too early to make judgment about most things.

Is it worth mentioning that we could easily have all the rules if GW didn't insist on forcing people to pay through the nose for them?

Pretty much every other wargame I'm aware of has free, downloadable rules. If GW went that route, they could release the rules for every faction right at the start of each edition - because they wouldn't have to be (re)printing entire codices for each faction.

Furthermore, it would allow GW to still do gradual model releases, without even having to worry about being beaten to the post by 3rd party manufacturers - as they could simply add new dataslates to the online rules (which is a lot trickier when you're expecting people to purchase physical rulebooks).

I mean, they could still sell some rulebooks for those who want all the extra fluff (or who just prefer physical rules), but it wouldn't matter as much if different factions got their physical books later in the edition.


I know it's not exactly what you were talking about. However, when someone defends GW by saying 'we don't know all the rules yet', it seems reasonable to ask 'well whose fault is that?'.

It is a good point, and I do think it's completely ridiculous exactly how many books you need, a number that increases constantly. It could be so much easier if GW was willing to release rules a little faster and maybe for a little cheaper, i agree.
It is worth noting that I'm not exactly defending GW, so kuch as just trying to caution fellow fans to not speak too soon.

"WHY WON'T THEY GIVE ME FREE STUUUUF!"
isn't a good point. we've GOT the rules right now, 8th and 9th are cross compatable. most of the complaints about rules are people jumping to the gun about upcoming products, ones they have incomplete info about.

I see both sides. GW shouldn't exactly give free stuff lol, but it is kind of a problem that you need like 5 books to play now, and it mostly just makes it harder to appreciate upcoming rules/changes when you have to buy out to see them. But yeah, you're right, GW needs to charge for their books, and they do give out a fair amount of free rules.

Hello! OP here. I would like to remind everyone that Rule 1 of these forums is "Be Polite". I love the discussions here, but let's not hurt anyone's feelings.
I apologize if anything I've said comes across as a "broken record" or has been said before, I am new here and I do not know what has been hammered in too much already. I simply wanted to weigh in on the discussion that I think we should be careful about discussing topics that could change within a month.

Except... It's becoming largely agreed upon that the new mission design is utter trash. This has little to do with codex books.

I hope GW has a new mission pack up their sleeve. If they don't, the health of the game is going to suffer immensely.

Is it, though?

Based purely on the postings on Dakka, my impression is that most people like the new focus on objectives.

Do you have data to back up your claim? Any poll or something?

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
We have a lot of rules and information about 9th edition out and about, but I would like to remind everyone that none of the codexes have come out yet. We're in the "index era" of the current edition, and it is really too early to make judgment about most things. I mean, we all remember how bad things were in the 8th edition index era, right?

What if some of us liked the "index era" of 8th edition? Minus a few broken unit entries that were quickly fixed, what if some of us liked an era where all factions' datasheets were given to us at the same time? Before the arms race of new codexes and the bloat of supplements. Before 40k got turned into more of a "gotcha!" card game of strategem shenanigans and CP management that ended up increasing the lethality of the game and decreasing traditional wargame tactics.

No, not all of us remember how "bad" things were in the 8th edition index era, because in many ways the game was a in a better spot than when all codexes and supplements had been released.

Nurglitch wrote:
Seems odd for GW to do what their less-successful competitors are doing, rather than following their own recipe for success.

GW like to make more profit and the fandom has shown if they offer scraps, a great deal of the fandom will call said scraps the greatest feast imaginable. 8th showed GW doesn't need to do much to foster goodwill with people and putting out a means of both better supporting the game mechanically whilst also freeing up some of the cost would go a long way. As well, most people will probably still want a physical or much-easier-to-scroll-through PDF anyway and buy it regardless, but every little helps.

And in fairness, GW could piss in bottles of water, sell them with 'we've literally urinated in these lmao' labels and they'd probably still sell out with a lot of people telling them it's the best water ever.

Is it, though?

Based purely on the postings on Dakka, my impression is that most people like the new focus on objectives.

Do you have data to back up your claim? Any poll or something?

Firstly, there are no missions (plural) there is one mission (singular) with merely a different deployment shape and objectives location.

There was an initial positivity to the new mission because of its similarity to the Nova mission. The Nova mission having been thought of as superior because it was used for tournament play.

Now, that it's become the default, only way to play, the reality of how stale, how the design fosters a specific style of play, how it rewards specific units/armies over another, how the problem of alpha-strike was inherent to the Nova mission only... Basically, the rose colored glasses have fallen off and players are starting to finally realize that the Nova mission is hot garbage and has been all along.

Aside from posts here on Dakka and my local community...
Tabletop Tactics, Mini-Wargaming, Winters SEO, Hellstorm Wargaming, SN Battle Reports and other prominent YouTube channels have all now stated that the new mission design leaves a lot to be desired because there's no variety. With the new mission, it's the same damn game over and over and over and over.

Calling it trash is my own emphasis, but it's been clear from the start that it was no good and easy to see that the game would become stale because of it.

Heard this song and dance in 8th. It was supposedly the "best edition ever" and yet it had the depth of a kiddy pool and about as fun as taking laps in one as well. People have every right to like or dislike whatever they want as it's all subjective but pressure to have a hive minded or groupthink opinion about Warhammer has just been horrible these past few years.

Frankly i enjoyed the discussions about how bad 7th was because there wasn't this push for people to like the edition. We played the game but we all saw how bad GW was at rules writing (people liking or dislike different aspects of the game) and that was ok. With 8th/9th if you don't think it's the best game ever then you get pushed out of the "group" because somehow being critical of a company like GW seems to hurt people's self worth because they like something that somebody else dislikes.

While I agree with the point of not making assumptions about what new things will look like, there are two important caveats:

1. We are in a constant state of 'wait and see', because the game is constantly in flux. When people are dissatisfied with the current state, 'wait and see' is a common but (IMO) wholly unreasonable response.

2. There have, in the past, been things that were recognized as issues in advance (Iron Hands and Eradicators come to mind), but 'wait and see' was used dismissively because we didn't have all the information... just enough to make a reasonable assessment.

I think you have a very reasonable point- that we can't make judgments on things that have woefully incomplete information (like, say, declaring that Necrons will be OP due to new Reanimation Protocols changes, without knowing whether or not everything still resurrects on the same die value)- but have attached it to a phrase that is most commonly used to downplay legitimate criticism.

Is it, though?

Based purely on the postings on Dakka, my impression is that most people like the new focus on objectives.

Do you have data to back up your claim? Any poll or something?

People like the focus on objectives, but that's about it. The secondaries aren't very good (unless you play marines and then they're too good), and the scoring structure gives too much advantage to the person who goes first. That statement tends to bring people out of the woodwork saying it's not true and change your tactics and whatever, but it's blatantly obvious for anyone to see in just reading the mission rules that this is so. As more and more tournaments happen, that "player who went first won" stat seems to be pretty steadily creeping more and more towards player 1 having a large advantage. %60 I think at the last check?


As for the rest of it - yeah, I think it's fair to say wait for the codexes. October will be the first real test. If they "pass" that test and those books are good and work well with 9th, the next test will be seeing if they stay with the design philosophy after that. People keep saying "8th and 9th are cross compatible" but I would say that's only true in the most general sense. My group has been lucky enough to play A LOT of games and there's a lot of little problems that keep popping up. They are mostly tied to the 8th ed codexes though, so we're hoping the actual 9th ed books sort that.

As somebody who bought Tyranids at the start of 8th, I don't think I've ever had a worse case of buyers remose, ever. GW pretty much showed me they don't care about Xenos customers with their release schedule. I don't need to support a company that doesn't care about it's customers.

I'll definitely be "waiting and seeing" because I won't be spending another dime on GW products until things change dramatically.

That includes waiting a few months after the codex is released. This way, when GW makes a few units in that codex better than others so they can sell off excess inventory, you won't get stuck with the nerfed units.

It's sad that this has been GW's best year financially, because it's been the worst year in pretty much every other way.

I was really, really excited at the start of 8th.

I couldn't be more apathetic at the start of 9th.

Tycho wrote:

Is it, though?

Based purely on the postings on Dakka, my impression is that most people like the new focus on objectives.

Do you have data to back up your claim? Any poll or something?

People like the focus on objectives, but that's about it. The secondaries aren't very good (unless you play marines and then they're too good), and the scoring structure gives too much advantage to the person who goes first. That statement tends to bring people out of the woodwork saying it's not true and change your tactics and whatever, but it's blatantly obvious for anyone to see in just reading the mission rules that this is so. As more and more tournaments happen, that "player who went first won" stat seems to be pretty steadily creeping more and more towards player 1 having a large advantage. %60 I think at the last check?


As for the rest of it - yeah, I think it's fair to say wait for the codexes. October will be the first real test. If they "pass" that test and those books are good and work well with 9th, the next test will be seeing if they stay with the design philosophy after that. People keep saying "8th and 9th are cross compatible" but I would say that's only true in the most general sense. My group has been lucky enough to play A LOT of games and there's a lot of little problems that keep popping up. They are mostly tied to the 8th ed codexes though, so we're hoping the actual 9th ed books sort that.

The secdonaries could use some improvement for sure. That being said I have found that I really enjoy the focus on the primaries a lot more so far. I've had much closer games in a lot of cases and have found it to be really fun.

Nurglitch wrote:
Seems odd for GW to do what their less-successful competitors are doing, rather than following their own recipe for success.

Because obviously the only reason GW is a market leader is that they charge hundreds of dollars for poorly-edited rules that they dribble out slowly over a period of years.

We know GW is the market leader, but "GW is the market leader, therefore everything they do is perfect and couldn't possibly be improved if it resembles something another company is doing" is a silly argument.

Vankraken wrote:Heard this song and dance in 8th. It was supposedly the "best edition ever" and yet it had the depth of a kiddy pool and about as fun as taking laps in one as well.

Guess I should go swimming in kiddy pools more often, as I really liked 8th!

People have every right to like or dislike whatever they want as it's all subjective but pressure to have a hive minded or groupthink opinion about Warhammer has just been horrible these past few years.

Oh, absolutely wrong to have a hive minded opinion - so why on this forum is there such a pushback when people say they like things?

Frankly i enjoyed the discussions about how bad 7th was because there wasn't this push for people to like the edition.

Alternatively, it's less "hey, like this!" and more "hey, let *me* like this and leave some room for people to enjoy it without clogging everything with negativity".

We played the game but we all saw how bad GW was at rules writing (people liking or dislike different aspects of the game) and that was ok. With 8th/9th if you don't think it's the best game ever then you get pushed out of the "group" because somehow being critical of a company like GW seems to hurt people's self worth because they like something that somebody else dislikes.

Or, how I'm perceiving it, if you don't think 8th was lame, shallow, with "all the depth of a kiddie pool and about as fun", you also feel ostracised because you like the thing that everyone's hating on. Which also seems to come with the added bonus of certain users claiming that my play experience isn't valid, is stupid, that I'm somehow less intelligent for it, and that I'm 'white-knighting'.

All because I like something that someone else dislikes. You see - it swings both ways.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Is it, though?

Based purely on the postings on Dakka, my impression is that most people like the new focus on objectives.

Do you have data to back up your claim? Any poll or something?

I'm reminded of a quote from my sociology class:

"Dont believe everyone on the internet. They like to make gak up."

- Baberaham Blinkin

Dude, I took that class twice!

Seriously though, I like a lot of what is happening lately.
For instance, the new 'core' designation is useful.

It seems that there was a certain momentum that has been redirected by current leadership at GW.
If trends in this direction continue, we might expect a return to a more stable normal.

As players clamor for the further commodification and institutionalization of the hobby/game, e.g. e-sport platforms and commission painters, a stable rules set is something that people will eventually settle on for themselves if GW doesn't take the initiative to control this space.
We might be seeing this in the new game-size designations, for instance.

No matter what they do, I will never own a floating tank, and some of the tacticool and cartoonish restartes designs have diminished my already foundering faith in the emporer.
I was not going to burn anything, but GW seems to have regained its dignitity just in time.

 Sasori wrote:


The secdonaries could use some improvement for sure. That being said I have found that I really enjoy the focus on the primaries a lot more so far. I've had much closer games in a lot of cases and have found it to be really fun.

It's a living ruleset. More secondaries will evolve. Hopefully the codex secondaries aren't ridiculous.

I could see people with codexes having a secondary advantage which would be massively unfortunate.

Ah yes. Another "let's wait' claim. Never mind in 20 years those claims have always been incorrect.

Never get bored of being wrong eh

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. Another "let's wait' claim. Never mind in 20 years those claims have always been incorrect.

Never get bored of being wrong eh

Show me posts predicting the battalion and CP changes. Show me the people who predicted CORE and seemingly broad marine nerfs. Go ahead. I'll wait.

And then spin up your tired bs about how everything is a ploy.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. Another "let's wait' claim. Never mind in 20 years those claims have always been incorrect.

Never get bored of being wrong eh

Ah, actually, I am not bored of being wrong because I just started. I'm new here. Maybe in a few weeks I'll get bored with being wrong and decide to be right.
I think what everyone's missing is that when I say "wait and see" I don't mean it in an entirely positive sense. When I see people get extremely excited about the changes in this edition, it gives me the same feeling as the negative comments. I personally prefer to remain optimistic, but at the same time my original intent was that we shouldn't make premature judgment in general.
Thank you for replies, everyone!

All these people complaining about the rules and not being able to wait a few months for the nerfs we know are coming and I have not had a chance to even get a game in because of moving and covid.

Where are people getting all of this in game experience to be able to say that something is one way or the other. From what I have seen of the GT results marines usually aren’t winning them.

Past behaviour predicts future behaviour.

If your army was fethed in 8th after updates etc, its still gonna be screwed in 9th. Especially if you are alligned with chaos.

There's definitely differences in exactly how far "wait and see" should be applied. Right now? We have very little information on how the new Codexes will play out, so it's a fair thing to say.
On the other hand, saying "wait and see" to a Squat diehard will likely (perhaps rightly?) see you get a metaphorical forum-based beatdown.

Ah yes. Another "let's wait' claim. Never mind in 20 years those claims have always been incorrect.
Never get bored of being wrong eh

Why yes, it IS almost as tiresome as repeated posts from people who have been following the hobby for "20 years" and are so unhappy with the supposed repeated let-downs that they are still here. You should try some positivity once in a while - you might just like it.