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.

But if we would accept that, then GW doesn't do any beta testing at all. They just give people pre build units or armies, without points or the ability to tinker and adjust to existing lists. And after that, if we were to trust some of the people that claim to test the GW stuff or work for GW, GW does what ever it wants anyway. They have EA level of testing of their games.

Karol wrote:
But if we would accept that, then GW doesn't do any beta testing at all. They just give people pre build units or armies, without points or the ability to tinker and adjust to existing lists. And after that, if we were to trust some of the people that claim to test the GW stuff or work for GW, GW does what ever it wants anyway. They have EA level of testing of their games.

Shock and awe. GW doesn't handle testing well. Its almost like they dont proof read or edit their books either and every release they have ever put out has required at least 1 faq errata to fix their mistakes. (When they decide to fix them at all).

But that cant be right?

Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also EAs games basically work on release of each product. GW wishes it had EAs testing standards.

 Lance845 wrote:
You are just arguing semantics based around "usually"s and "probably"s. You can call any build by any name and it means the same thing. What qualifies a person for build x is based on what you want out of your tests for build x.

If you want to go software terms, the difference is unit/integration testing and end-user/acceptance testing. Which are completely different things done by completely different people. If your company/project has the same people doing both, you're doing it wrong.

 Lance845 wrote:

Shock and awe. GW doesn't handle testing well. Its almost like they dont proof read or edit their books either and every release they have ever put out has required at least 1 faq errata to fix their mistakes. (When they decide to fix them at all).

But that cant be right?

Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also EAs games basically work on release of each product. GW wishes it had EAs testing standards.

well some errors can always happen. I was thinking more about rules or even whole factions that are writen for w40k, but maybe not for this edition. Necrons for example. Their rules feel as if someone was thking about something else then 8th ed, when he wrote and tested them. It is not even the case of GK, where the codex was writen in a way to work with the core book rules, only to stop working when the core rules were changed. And it is strange, because it is the same people doing all the books. It is not like there is some evil or bad sub studio in London that writes all the bad rules and bad codex, and a good studio writing the rules at the GW HQ.

I is just hard for me to imagine how the same group of a few people can write a codex sm and csm back to back, and think both are okey to be played in the same edition. Or in the case of necrons for them to be played in a specific 8th ed. Errors can happen, strange rule interactions or FW stuff can mess up the game, specialy if the testing is done without them, but I can't find an explanation to not errors, but big ball drop books which then people have to use for the next few years.

Even their changes are strange. Point drops don't change the game as much as GW thinks, when everyone is getting them for example.

Having rules stacking from multiple books seems to be the rage in 8th ed. I wonder if they plant o keep the same practics in 9th. I like the PA book for my dudes, because at worst it gives me new stuff to play with, and that is huge for the worse option. But being forced in to buying a book every few months feels very seson pass to me.

If you want to go software terms, the difference is unit/integration testing and end-user/acceptance testing. Which are completely different things done by completely different people. If your company/project has the same people doing both, you're doing it wrong.

Is the difference between them a bit like between normal daily training fights, and specific preping for a specific event in sports?

Some errors can happen. Not being able to take Combi-Gravs was an error. Nobody caught it because Grav Guns are terrible though to begin with. How dod nobody catch that?

Karol wrote:

If you want to go software terms, the difference is unit/integration testing and end-user/acceptance testing. Which are completely different things done by completely different people. If your company/project has the same people doing both, you're doing it wrong.

Is the difference between them a bit like between normal daily training fights, and specific preping for a specific event in sports?

Really rough summary that maybe isn't correct for all software companies:

Unit testing is the basic code-level compatibility tests written by the developers, basically will the new changes break the system on a basic logical level. Then you normally have a form of sprint testing (depending on company ethos), which is confirmation by a software tester so a 2nd pair of eyes has confirmed this and ensured it meets its target with no unexpected behaviours. Then it will go through an end-to-end regression where all functionality is tested against one another before being given to a selected customer. At this stage user acceptance testing is done to confirm that the changes/software meets their standards and is fit for purpose.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
You are just arguing semantics based around "usually"s and "probably"s. You can call any build by any name and it means the same thing. What qualifies a person for build x is based on what you want out of your tests for build x.

If you want to go software terms, the difference is unit/integration testing and end-user/acceptance testing. Which are completely different things done by completely different people. If your company/project has the same people doing both, you're doing it wrong.

Also, having been involved in UAT, when the people doing it are not allowed to raise issues, or where the plan is say a week of UAT then release with no time allocated for a fix & re-test cycle there is no point doing it

Something I'd like to see for 9th edition : get rid of modifiers. Replace them with a "miss chance" roll.

Right now cover favors heavy armoured units. Older systems favored lightly armored units. I think cover should favor all equally. How does it work ?

Light cover : "when a unit benefits from light cover (wooden fence, hedge, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1. After that, proceed to wound as normal."
Heavy cover : ""when a unit benefits from heavy cover (ruin, barricade, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1 and 2. After that, proceed to wound as normal."

This way, anyone benefiting from light cover gets -16.66% damage and anyone benefiting from heavy cover gets -33.33% damage.

So let me guess 9 pages but no actual rumours or actual news?

 Argive wrote:
So let me guess 9 pages but no actual rumours or actual news?

Yep, there is no rumors, its just wish listing.

 Argive wrote:
So let me guess 9 pages but no actual rumours or actual news?

Well it's not in the N&R sub-forum so... who cares?

 Nym wrote:
Something I'd like to see for 9th edition : get rid of modifiers. Replace them with a "miss chance" roll.

Right now cover favors heavy armoured units. Older systems favored lightly armored units. I think cover should favor all equally. How does it work ?

Light cover : "when a unit benefits from light cover (wooden fence, hedge, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1. After that, proceed to wound as normal."
Heavy cover : ""when a unit benefits from heavy cover (ruin, barricade, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1 and 2. After that, proceed to wound as normal."

This way, anyone benefiting from light cover gets -16.66% damage and anyone benefiting from heavy cover gets -33.33% damage.

That's an interesting idea to flatten out the effects of cover across different statlines, but would involve a lot more rolling.

What about bringing back cover saves and allowing armor saves in addition?

I liked cover saves, made me feel like I was accomplishing something.

Another idea might be making cover be something like "4+ or +1" so that you basicly have a minuium while units with better armor still see an increase.

So if you moved a squad of cultists whose armor is 6+ their save becomes 4+, but if you moved a squad of marines with a 3+ save the save improves by 1 instead to 2+.

this means everyone gets improved defences, but those with the weakest armor can see the most dramatic increase

I admit my idea is mostly intended to make it so that being in cover isn't going to add a second set of die rolls.

To be honest, I'm a more in favor of a refined 8th edition rulebook, an 8.5 edition or something, or "202X 8th Edition Revised Rulebook" incorporating any minor changes to the current system.

Now, this is where I am allowed to be a little insane, right? I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna say something completely bonkers.

9th edition should be a radical change when it happens. I don't mean specifically rules- I mean, I'd be fine with it shaking the very foundations of the game as it is. If I can wishlist, here goes:

1- "A Space Marine is a Space Marine"- basically, Intercessors and Tactical Marines, for Example, should share the same stat line. 2 wounds and an extra attack. A Primaris Space Marine Captain would be the exact same stats as a regular Space Marine Captain- it would just be called "Space Marine Captain". Basically "every Space Marine is a Primaris Marine", but also it shouldn't disallow "Normal Marine" models at all- basically, if you have a bunch of "Normal Marines" the only thing that would change for you would be an improved stat line. Drop the word 'Primaris' altogether and the only difference between the two types should come down to model preference.

2. Silhouette ratings: Throw TLOS in the trash and just make it plain and simple- if it's a rhino, it occupies a specific amount of height and width. Print that on a card or put it in the instructors or something so you can hold it up and reference it.

3. Lord of War restrictions: No LoW in games less than 1500 points, cannot exceed 1/3 of your total points.

4. Enhance the 'Power Level' system. An example would be to create subcategories of a unit- Offense/Defense/Support/Size ratings or something, and there would be general limits to each of those that either force couldn't exceed- to some degree (You could get a higher Offensive tolerance if you severely diminish your Defensive score below a certain level, or have an army more focused on buffing and getting bonuses for it if you have a very low number of models). I know, it doesn't sound perfect and if I had the plan laid out I'd have already pitched it or profited from it, just an example idea.

5. Make official 'Soup' Armies that are just one singular Army with its own rules, strategems, etc.- examples would be Adeptus Sororitas with Inquisition together as an Ordo Hereticus task force, or a Chaos Lord and some elite Chosen Heretic/Traitor Astartes within an army of Renegade Militia/Traitor Guard. It shouldn't be easy to 'soup' otherwise, allies should be more idea for 3000+ games or doubles games.

6. More versatility in wargear options, at least with certain units. To some degree, at least. I'm rather tired of having old models that have invalid loadouts, or perfectly reasonable weapon loadouts that for some reason I can't take.

7- Ban f**king Rodney forever. I hate Rodney so much, and if you don't know Rodney that's good because I promise you would hate him, too. Two weeks ago Rodney comes into the FLGS to meet with some guy he's offered to play against, and looks over the guy's models and list- then he goes, "oh, no- I totally forgot to bring like three things on my list. Oh, well, I'll just adjust it and make what I've got work" and then proceeds to tailor his list. Also, he brings in food he cooks at home that somehow always smells like it should have been thrown out three months ago. I think he may have taken my tape measure, too. He also said that the Ramones weren't real punk, so there's that. If 9th edition could ban him, I would be happy but I would honestly prefer if it just included some kind of system that allowed me to savagely beat him with a tube sock full of rusted screws.

8. Bring a bit more 'narrative scenario' into standard matched games, similar to Zone Mortalis and other scenarios. It doesn't have to be perfect, but something other than the same-old slight variations of "put all your guys on that spot and don't let the other guy put his on that spot".

9. Turret Facing. Just... I should not be able to shoot you with a sponson gun on the opposite side of my tank.

10. Revise flyer rules. I personally don't think a lot of the aircraft belong in regular games of 40k, but at this point the cat is out of the bag- so the rules for these should be reviewed and a more reasonable approach to flyers should come into play- perhaps only on certain turns, or an entire 'flyer phase' for supersonics doing strafing runs where your opponent can react to your flyer.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
3. Lord of War restrictions: No LoW in games less than 1500 points, cannot exceed 1/3 of your total points.

[SNIP]

10. Revise flyer rules. I personally don't think a lot of the aircraft belong in regular games of 40k, but at this point the cat is out of the bag- so the rules for these should be reviewed and a more reasonable approach to flyers should come into play- perhaps only on certain turns, or an entire 'flyer phase' for supersonics doing strafing runs where your opponent can react to your flyer.

If flyers are out of the bag, LoW are out of the bag - especially as there are now two factions in the game made up of just those models (IK & CK).

Also the Ramones weren't real punk, they were basically a boy band marketed as punk just like the Sex Pistols.

 Dysartes wrote:
If flyers are out of the bag, LoW are out of the bag - especially as there are now two factions in the game made up of just those models (IK & CK).

I kinda saw these as less "factions" and more "optional units that work in more than one army, but you gotta buy a $40.00 book to use them". I don't think they really belong in a matched play game at less than 1500 points, or some other kinds of restrictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also the Ramones weren't real punk, they were basically a boy band marketed as punk just like the Sex Pistols.

Rodney, I hope your wife blow-torches all your models, just like she did your stupid Bob Saget bobblehead that one time you got a DUI on a golf cart.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
What about bringing back cover saves and allowing armor saves in addition?

I liked cover saves, made me feel like I was accomplishing something.

I completely agree. Cover saves gave you something to do during your opponent's phase. With the current armour save/cover system, it's like 2nd Ed 40K, where some armies just spend their opponent's turn removing models as they have no way of actually saving any damage. And honestly it's why I liked the AP system from 3rd-7th. Armour meant something.

I still remember the first demo game of 3rd I witnessed at a GW store. As a long-time 2nd Ed player I was shocked at the very idea of Marines getting to take 3+ saves. It was simply unbelievable to me. That's... not the case anymore. 3+ means that you get to take 4+ and 5+ saves these days, as Armour Penetration modifiers are so prevalent.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If flyers are out of the bag, LoW are out of the bag - especially as there are now two factions in the game made up of just those models (IK & CK).

I kinda saw these as less "factions" and more "optional units that work in more than one army, but you gotta buy a $40.00 book to use them". I don't think they really belong in a matched play game at less than 1500 points, or some other kinds of restrictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also the Ramones weren't real punk, they were basically a boy band marketed as punk just like the Sex Pistols.

Rodney, I hope your wife blow-torches all your models, just like she did your stupid Bob Saget bobblehead that one time you got a DUI on a golf cart.

Based on that story I'd want to party with Rodney.

What if cover wasn't a +/- modifier but a flat adjustment.

Shooting through ruins means you hit on a 5+ EVERYONE gets adjusted to 5+.

 Lance845 wrote:
What if cover wasn't a +/- modifier but a flat adjustment.

Shooting through ruins means you hit on a 5+ EVERYONE gets adjusted to 5+.

Are there any units (with ranged weapons) where that would improve their accuracy, assuming no other modifiers?

Also, how would you envisage that interacting with Dark Reapers?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


1- "A Space Marine is a Space Marine"- basically, Intercessors and Tactical Marines, for Example, should share the same stat line. 2 wounds and an extra attack. A Primaris Space Marine Captain would be the exact same stats as a regular Space Marine Captain- it would just be called "Space Marine Captain". Basically "every Space Marine is a Primaris Marine", but also it shouldn't disallow "Normal Marine" models at all- basically, if you have a bunch of "Normal Marines" the only thing that would change for you would be an improved stat line. Drop the word 'Primaris' altogether and the only difference between the two types should come down to model preference.

Definitely this. Marines got upsided in 2nd edition and again in 3rd without needed a new set of rules. People bought the new ones because they were better models. We don't need two tiers of Marines nor should people be forced to replace their existing marine armies when Order 66 is executed next year.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What if cover wasn't a +/- modifier but a flat adjustment.

Shooting through ruins means you hit on a 5+ EVERYONE gets adjusted to 5+.

Are there any units (with ranged weapons) where that would improve their accuracy, assuming no other modifiers?

None i can think of.

Also, how would you envisage that interacting with Dark Reapers?

It doesnt. Just like los ignoring models wouldnt be effected.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
What about bringing back cover saves and allowing armor saves in addition?

I liked cover saves, made me feel like I was accomplishing something.

I completely agree. Cover saves gave you something to do during your opponent's phase. With the current armour save/cover system, it's like 2nd Ed 40K, where some armies just spend their opponent's turn removing models as they have no way of actually saving any damage. And honestly it's why I liked the AP system from 3rd-7th. Armour meant something.

I still remember the first demo game of 3rd I witnessed at a GW store. As a long-time 2nd Ed player I was shocked at the very idea of Marines getting to take 3+ saves. It was simply unbelievable to me. That's... not the case anymore. 3+ means that you get to take 4+ and 5+ saves these days, as Armour Penetration modifiers are so prevalent.

Part of that prevalence is that they need you to remove handfuls of models each turn, since their only balance mechanism is to lower points, which means more models on the tables (oh, and more sales). Otherwise, nothing would die and games would take forever for little return. The amount of Dakka today is over the top. Remember when Dread mounted assault cannons were Heavy 4? That was amazing (at the time). Now? Pfft.

The only way 9th succeeds is if they manage to clean up and streamline what it takes to play the game. When 8th launched, and the Indexes were the armies, it was pretty straightforward, and the game played quickly and fairly intuitively. Now, its creaking under its own weight after a rather short period of time. So much so that I’ve stopped playing 40k altogether (which is a shame since I’ve been in its since the tail end of 2nd).

Changing anything big in the core rules would be the wrong way.

Not that those are without flaws that should be solved (like terrain rules and LoS), but the game still uses unit profiles written for 3rd edition

the most important thing for 9th would be to come up with profiles written for the changes made in 8th edition to bring units back in line
also a raise in point costs would be needed as now everything is too close together to make adjustments (as for some units 1 point per model makes already the difference between unplayable and overpowered)

All of the points discussed are beyond the scope of a minor edition change like the one that is coming (if one is coming).

Almost nothing will change, i expect only the following ones:

- Changes to terrain rules to bring them more in line with the kill team ones or to the apoc ones. GW doesn't like the current situation of terrain, to the point that uses houserules for the official events.

- Matched play rules updated to the ones presented in the last CA.

- Minor changes to the detachments.


That's it, i don't expect anything else to change. It will be more like a patch than an edition change.

 Cruentus wrote:


The only way 9th succeeds is if they manage to clean up and streamline what it takes to play the game. When 8th launched, and the Indexes were the armies, it was pretty straightforward, and the game played quickly and fairly intuitively. Now, its creaking under its own weight after a rather short period of time. So much so that I’ve stopped playing 40k altogether (which is a shame since I’ve been in its since the tail end of 2nd).

Problem with 8th is that it built such a tiny foundation for the game that all the bloat quickly warps the game. It also built that foundation and it's supporting structure using recycled unit/weapon profiles which where developed with the gameplay mechanics of 3rd to 7th in mind. They cut serious corners attempting to do a game system reboot and also didn't future proof the game. They now find themselves stacking on layers of bloat in a similar vein that 7th had stacking formation rules which destablized what little game balance there was.

7th was a mess but it has a lot better core rule system than 8th's. This gave some design room to work with when coming up with power/feature creep so it didn't rapidly topple the game over (at least until Decurion era formations became a thing and cranked up the power creep to 11).

9th needs to streamline sure but what it really needs to expand the core gameplay to be more involved than just move, mind bullet, shoot, chop, remove scared models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
So let me guess 9 pages but no actual rumours or actual news?

Well it's not in the N&R sub-forum so... who cares?

I was asking if there was any actual news or rumours as in like some shred of evidence or at least credibility...
I mean we are still waiting for those two wounds CSM berserkers..riiight? lol

I'm really curious where this sudden idea that "9th is just around the corners /9th is on the way" is coming from.
There's plenty of milking left in 8th..

 Argive wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
So let me guess 9 pages but no actual rumours or actual news?

Well it's not in the N&R sub-forum so... who cares?

I was asking if there was any actual news or rumours as in like some shred of evidence or at least credibility...
I mean we are still waiting for those two wounds CSM berserkers..riiight? lol

I'm really curious where this sudden idea that "9th is just around the corners /9th is on the way" is coming from.
There's plenty of milking left in 8th..

There was a fake screenshot that went around during LVO where warhammer community supposedly announced 9th edition. They have come out stating it was fake. but people had already started all the threads by then.