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.

this already started before that

main reason is that 2020 would end the regular edition cycle and a big campaign ending the current one fits the picture

the LVO fake was more a joke about Warpath that is rumoured to see a new edition or Apocalypse becoming the main game

Spoletta wrote:
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.

This is exactly my expectation.

They should go back to comparison numbers. They'd have more variety

Use the S VS T rules for ws and bs

I'd love to have the ability to overwatch against enemy shooting.

 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..

It's been around since 8th turned a year old. Earliest I remember was that GW were going to release 9th after all the armies were updated from Index to Codex. I blame the short 6th to 7th turn around. 4-5 years was the norm for editions but 6th's 2 year life made everyone think GW releases new editions every other year.

I remember reading an article years ago how a game design staff is always in motion, and that work on the next version is already underway before the ink of the current edition is dry. It’s clear, with the likes of the Chapter Approved line and things like the 2.0 Marine codex that the rules are in constant state of development - it just becomes a question when GW will pull the trigger to stamp out a printed version of whatever ruleset is being used at the moment at headquarters.

With all the Major Codexes being in print with only campaign books (of dubious worth) to sustain them going forward, the time is ripe for them to upturn the apple cart and put out a new series of books to coax customers to buy another of paper books.

Most likely, 9th will just be an iteration of 8th, and June - when they like to push out a ne boxed set to close their fiscal year - seems to me a good opportunity for them to unveil a new edition.

That’s my reading of the tea leaves around here, and I’d happily be wrong because I’m not in the mood nor interested in another round of rules or Codexes to pick up.

Hellebore wrote:
They should go back to comparison numbers. They'd have more variety

Use the S VS T rules for ws and bs

The issue with stat comparison there is that with S/T you have a different stat being used for offense and defense, while with WS it's the same stat, which makes changing a unit's WS a really big imprecise lever to pull by comparison. It's certainly possible but just copy-pasting the S v. T table would add a layer of complexity without really changing what a lot of units hit on.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
They should go back to comparison numbers. They'd have more variety

Use the S VS T rules for ws and bs

The issue with stat comparison there is that with S/T you have a different stat being used for offense and defense, while with WS it's the same stat, which makes changing a unit's WS a really big imprecise lever to pull by comparison. It's certainly possible but just copy-pasting the S v. T table would add a layer of complexity without really changing what a lot of units hit on.

I've been playing around with an alternate ruleset, and one of my core principles is exactly this - all three core rolls (hit, wound, save) use the same basic opposed check.

For WS/BS, they go against a new stat - Evasion. Then S v T and AV v AP.

This also means that Harlequins (for example) lost their Invuln but have a super-rich Evasion instead.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
They should go back to comparison numbers. They'd have more variety

Use the S VS T rules for ws and bs

The issue with stat comparison there is that with S/T you have a different stat being used for offense and defense, while with WS it's the same stat, which makes changing a unit's WS a really big imprecise lever to pull by comparison. It's certainly possible but just copy-pasting the S v. T table would add a layer of complexity without really changing what a lot of units hit on.

Which is why they should add a defence stat to represent how difficult units are to hit.

So the answer to bring about a better game. Is to introduce more charts and stats. Despite everyone loosing their mind how mazin 8th is because it got rid of stats and charts (armour values, initiative,ws v ws chart etc.)..i really dont think they will add more stats or new mechanics...

If anything, it will probably less. In the end it will just play itself and you just roll a d6 from time to time so that its "easily accessible, streamlined, time saving" so new players can get chase that insta gratification they are being brought up on.

God i really hope im wrong about this.

 Argive wrote:
So the answer to bring about a better game. Is to introduce more charts and stats. Despite everyone loosing their mind how mazin 8th is because it got rid of stats and charts (armour values, initiative,ws v ws chart etc.)..i really dont think they will add more stats or new mechanics...

If anything, it will probably less. In the end it will just play itself and you just roll a d6 from time to time so that its "easily accessible, streamlined, time saving" so new players can get chase that insta gratification they are being brought up on.

God i really hope im wrong about this.

The loss of Initiative and the fixed WS hit is lame, but the loss of armor values/facings is not. If GW implemented it better, sure, but even then, complete immunity to certain weapons is kinda bad when it comes to skew lists.

I don't think we need to go back to comparative Weapon Skills.

I do think we need to reintroduce a more granular comparative Strength/Toughness table, as right now it is far too easy to wound things.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think we need to go back to comparative Weapon Skills.

I do think we need to reintroduce a more granular comparative Strength/Toughness table, as right now it is far too easy to wound things.

I was actually surprised when they opted to stick to the strength/toughness scale existing majority within a 10 point bracket, I kinda wish they expanded the range and gave more breadth for a comparative table.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think we need to go back to comparative Weapon Skills.

I do think we need to reintroduce a more granular comparative Strength/Toughness table, as right now it is far too easy to wound things.

Maybe not exactly a comparison chart, but more negative modifiers to hits in melee would be a good idea.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't think we need to go back to comparative Weapon Skills.

I do think we need to reintroduce a more granular comparative Strength/Toughness table, as right now it is far too easy to wound things.

Dudeface wrote:I was actually surprised when they opted to stick to the strength/toughness scale existing majority within a 10 point bracket, I kinda wish they expanded the range and gave more breadth for a comparative table.

The S/T range isn't the only problem; re-rolls throw a wrench in the works by effectively doubling the chance of succeeding on a 6+, and increasing the effectiveness of a 5+ by 67%. Re-rolls disproportionately benefit high-volume, low-success-chance attacks over fewer, more effective ones.

I had not considered how re-rolls affect that. Very good point.

If there were certain toughness brackets that were unwoundable by certain Strengths, it would go along way to reducing the efficacy of multi-shot weaponry.

If a bunch of S5 and S6 stuff, stuff that is generally mutli-shot, wounding T8 and T9 on 5+'s (when it should be 6's or in some cases not possible), with re-rolls, it seriously skews the numbers.

The old toughness chart with the old wounding bracket should overall be okay, but obviously adjusted so that Bolters and Lasguns can still hit the vehicles they're hitting right now. I haven't even thought about how to handle that.

rerolls available left right and centre as certainly the main reason for all the killiness. How many of those detahblob combos would not be worth it if you couldn't just re-roll everything to force hits and woudns through.

I don't care how many autoguns there are. You shouldn't be able to hurt anything as big or bigger than dread.

Vehicle facing, LOS and terrain is another one... There just no way you can pump all the guns into the same target if only a snippet of a cornet of your tank can see... Or park your tank sideways to block a path and also shoot all of the guns and not give up any defence... Its dumb. And yes bases for vehicles with marked quarters would fix a lot of the problems. Laser line pointers are a thing now. You could make a template ones quite easily too I recon to remove everyone piling in together.. MW within 3" is quite common for explosions and some powers. Don'ts see why it cant be implemented for weapons. Swingy random shootiness for big weapons is also bit silly. The rerolls are there to counter balance this but it makes sense to just spam ROF weapons instead.

 Argive wrote:
Vehicle facing, LOS and terrain is another one... There just no way you can pump all the guns into the same target if only a snippet of a cornet of your tank can see... Or park your tank sideways to block a path and also shoot all of the guns and not give up any defence... Its dumb.

Oh be careful. Last time I tried to bring this up I was yelled at with people screeching "But it's an abstraction HMDC!!!".

Oh yeah I'm fully prepared to duck all the beer cups and trash.. lol.

There certainly seems there's less and less downside to doing things in the game

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Vehicle facing, LOS and terrain is another one... There just no way you can pump all the guns into the same target if only a snippet of a cornet of your tank can see... Or park your tank sideways to block a path and also shoot all of the guns and not give up any defence... Its dumb.

Oh be careful. Last time I tried to bring this up I was yelled at with people screeching "But it's an abstraction HMDC!!!".

A BIG problem with the value of vehicles in previous editions is that you often couldn't bring all the guns to bear - at least not without significant argument. How do you point a vehicle's effectiveness when often many guns won't be able to shoot?

This system removes that ambiguity and you know the vehicle will perform as you point it as much as you don't like it.

Blame sponsons as a design choice lol.. Bu maybe vehicles on bases and divide those into quarters? The current set up of basically terrain being irrelevant for movement and los really sucks IMO..

But I think that ship has sailed... What would you even do with something as ridiculous as a repulsor and how many guns it has? lol

IF 9th comes; simpler, easier & quicker is all that can be reasonably expected IMO. Sadly.

 Argive wrote:
Blame sponsons as a design choice lol.. Bu maybe vehicles on bases and divide those into quarters? The current set up of basically terrain being irrelevant for movement and los really sucks IMO..

But I think that ship has sailed... What would you even do with something as ridiculous as a repulsor and how many guns it has? lol

IF 9th comes; simpler, easier & quicker is all that can be reasonably expected IMO. Sadly.

I think the problem boils down to tlos and poor terrain and cover rules.

And of course, as you point out, the ridiculous design of something like primaris repulsor tanks. I figure in order to fire all those guns they must spin around like the ships in the Last Starfighter.

With no really good terrain roles, insane amounts of re-rolls, lots of ap everywhere, and multi damage weapons. There is no real tactics anymore, just shoot w/e you want and don't worry to much about table positioning.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
And of course, as you point out, the ridiculous design of something like primaris repulsor tanks. I figure in order to fire all those guns they must spin around like the ships in the Last Starfighter.

And that's an image I can't get out of my head now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
And of course, as you point out, the ridiculous design of something like primaris repulsor tanks. I figure in order to fire all those guns they must spin around like the ships in the Last Starfighter.

And that's an image I can't get out of my head now.

You're welcome.

Im picturing one of the teacup rides at a fair... XD

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
And of course, as you point out, the ridiculous design of something like primaris repulsor tanks. I figure in order to fire all those guns they must spin around like the ships in the Last Starfighter.

And that's an image I can't get out of my head now.

You're welcome.

Death Blossom.

 Argive wrote:
Blame sponsons as a design choice lol.. Bu maybe vehicles on bases and divide those into quarters? The current set up of basically terrain being irrelevant for movement and los really sucks IMO.

Given everyone can split fire now, is it as much of a problem? Fire the turret and sponson A at your primary target, whilst firing sponson B at a secondary target..

 Argive wrote:
But I think that ship has sailed... What would you even do with something as ridiculous as a repulsor and how many guns it has? lol

Remove it from the game, recall all products sold so they can be ground down into chips, destroy the mould, delete the CAD files, fire the designer and anyone who approved its production...

 Dysartes wrote:
Given everyone can split fire now, is it as much of a problem? Fire the turret and sponson A at your primary target, whilst firing sponson B at a secondary target..

There are quite a few models which have guns which can rarely, if ever be shoot at anything if you go back to the mount rules, even with split fire - for example the big shootas on the bommers, the big shootas #3 and #4 on battlewagons or the rear mounted big shootas on the scrap jet.

I really prefer model design not being limited by game rules over trying to force realism into an abstract representation of a battle.