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.

Anyone who thinks ap is capped at -1 is obviously being dim here.

What we heard was a vocal explanation. It is no surprise it wasn't using exact terminology from the rules. Use common sense lol

Not Online!!! wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
One part I found interesting was that GW will now be writing the rules for FW units. I wonder just how much attention they will get though (Can’t be much worse than currently though.)

Eh that's been the case for almost 3 years. In that time the GW studio has left them to rot except for nerfs including stuff like 300% price hike to what wasn't dominating or even really appearing in tournament tops.

FW wrote the initial rules(project which started when they heard of 8th ed along with players. They heard of 8th ed when you and I were told there would be 8th ed and FW rules would be on launch as well ) and after that nothing.

Imagine a working fw army.....

Good thing too, my r&h Started playing dusty 40k .

They mentioned new rules for Death Korp of Krieg, so there's hope for the other fw armies. Hope R&H rules are as good as they were in IA 13.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Poor baby rules writers are probably still bitter that FW did an overall better job.

No kidding. No comparison between gw codexes and the old Imperial Armour books in quality, both rules and fluff.

Sunny Side Up wrote:But 90% of FW stuff is still the old indexes from 3 years ago they haven't written.

Except the massive nerfs in ca.

Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.

Infantry.

My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:

#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)

#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.

Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?

- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.

- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.

- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.

- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.



So, not going to lie. I'm scared. I'm scared that the main lists of 9th are going to look like this:

6 characters w/abilities that improve firepower in an aura
9 heavy support options that form a castle around that.
1 unit that forms the outer-most circle to absorb a charge


Me? I don't like the sound of that.

I am so glad I didn’t buy 3 or 4 50$ rule books plus CA to play the 9th edition beta XD for just one army. I feel so bad for those that did though... worse for those that did so for multiple armies. I’m not advocating piracy but why even buy the rules at this point. It costs less to produce a rules set than it does to produce a video game and the video game AND the system is cheaper than trying to get everything for... space marines or CSM for example. And then 3 years later you get all the parts you were going to use from 200$ worth of books in one codex. Then more supplements... and 3 years later your 200$ worth of books are in another 50$ book... not counting periodical updates like CA of course.

Umbros wrote:
What we heard was a vocal explanation. It is no surprise it wasn't using exact terminology from the rules. Use common sense lol

On the other hand, these are the same people who just allowed an entire edition to pass without the rules for Assault weapons functioning as intended, so who knows what janky mess they might cough out..?

Seriously - biggest issue was 2+ to hit rerolling 1’s followed by 2’s to wound rerolling 1’s over and over again.

Either it is a dice rolling game or not. 1’s should always miss - no rerolling. Double 1’s always fail, casting and charges.

well... at least shooting into combat.. makes sense ... in the terms that, you as a person, if you wanted to, physically can shoot into the middle of a melee. you may hit everything, but i found it strange that it was like a rule you cant do it. same in fantasy (with the few exceptions of stuff that could). (i know; for gameplay, stuff doesnt need to make sense - but that was one that always bothered me - if i want to risk hitting my own troops damnit, let me risk it).

SF

 Yarium wrote:
Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.

Infantry.

My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:

#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)

Have you seen win conditions? How do we know this isn't more important? Also this could be of increased importance if opponents are less incentivised to incorporate troops...

#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.

They are good because they help with something other than themselves. This is not good design. They should perform a role of their own...


Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?

- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.

We don't know if detachment will incur costs. It could be that troops heavy detachment cost less.


- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.

true. Not sure mass firepower wasn't a problem before though.


- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.

true,


- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.

Umm the suggestion was that morale would have more of a medium effect. Right now they said it is all or nothing. Also, more cp means more to potentially use to ignore morale on your hordes...

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Umbros wrote:
What we heard was a vocal explanation. It is no surprise it wasn't using exact terminology from the rules. Use common sense lol

On the other hand, these are the same people who just allowed an entire edition to pass without the rules for Assault weapons functioning as intended, so who knows what janky mess they might cough out..?

Don't be dense. AP obviously isn't capped at -1. Criticism is fine, but being wilfully dense for the sake of negativity is tiresome.

Also the assault rule thing is one of those gotcha points. Yes it is technically not functional but in the real world everyone knows how it works. There are clearer criticisms that merit attention.

One criticism that really needs addressing is the goddamn rerolls.

 Yarium wrote:


- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.

-.

Unless detachments cost cp. We know souping cost cp but is that just to unlock other coder or it and/or detachments and is each detachment same cost.

What your 3 spearhead likes if each costs say 3cp? And opponent that fits his army to single bat pays 1cp?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

StarFyre wrote:
well... at least shooting into combat.. makes sense ... in the terms that, you as a person, if you wanted to, physically can shoot into the middle of a melee. you may hit everything, but i found it strange that it was like a rule you cant do it. same in fantasy (with the few exceptions of stuff that could). (i know; for gameplay, stuff doesnt need to make sense - but that was one that always bothered me - if i want to risk hitting my own troops damnit, let me risk it).

SF

Did they say that? From saturday stream it sounded tanks(and now also monsters) can shoot out of melee. Nothing about into.

Out of and into are 2 different thing. You can have one without other

Pretty sure they said detachments cost CP in the live stream.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty sure they said detachments cost CP in the live stream.

They did for sure in the original stream.

tneva82 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:


- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.

-.

Unless detachments cost cp. We know souping cost cp but is that just to unlock other coder or it and/or detachments and is each detachment same cost.

What your 3 spearhead likes if each costs say 3cp? And opponent that fits his army to single bat pays 1cp?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

StarFyre wrote:
well... at least shooting into combat.. makes sense ... in the terms that, you as a person, if you wanted to, physically can shoot into the middle of a melee. you may hit everything, but i found it strange that it was like a rule you cant do it. same in fantasy (with the few exceptions of stuff that could). (i know; for gameplay, stuff doesnt need to make sense - but that was one that always bothered me - if i want to risk hitting my own troops damnit, let me risk it).

SF

Did they say that? From saturday stream it sounded tanks(and now also monsters) can shoot out of melee. Nothing about into.

Out of and into are 2 different thing. You can have one without other

They made it sound like tanks will now not fight in CC but instead will be able to shoot instead.

The BRB apparently now contains a load of core strategums.

Troops are still relevant by way of them being your source of obsec. Especially given they are apparently looking forward to getting feedback on their matched play missions.

 Sasori wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty sure they said detachments cost CP in the live stream.

They did for sure in the original stream.

This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.

Andrew

oh maybe i misunderstood.

SF

 Sasori wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty sure they said detachments cost CP in the live stream.

They did for sure in the original stream.

Only 1 detachment is free everything else costs CP.
Additional codex access costs CP again.

Ie player 1 can spend CP on making the castellen, guard smashcaptain list.
The other player gets the same CP to start but as mono faction mono detachment will have a bunch of extra CP to do "cool stuff"

 Sasori wrote:
For Modifiers being capped, I imagine it's going to just be to hit and to wound.

Lets also not forget that GW often have rules which codex break. Modifiers can't be more than +1 except for XYZ situations.

Fixed amounts of CPs linked to game size is a great idea. Deals with many of the problems of Matched Play (Loyal 32 etc) and opens up play for fun armies like Deathwing and Ravenwing.

 AndrewC wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty sure they said detachments cost CP in the live stream.

They did for sure in the original stream.

This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.

Andrew

Simply put the 1 commander per detachment rule is going to need to go, but they are also apparently new points for 9th so lets see if the core units that currently suck actually start working before we throw out the wow is an entire codex.

Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.

macluvin wrote:
Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.

To be fair they still do, they just get shot at by the tanks they are in combat with now.

 Yarium wrote:
Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.

Infantry.

My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:

#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)

#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.

Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?

- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.

- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.

- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.

- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.



So, not going to lie. I'm scared. I'm scared that the main lists of 9th are going to look like this:

6 characters w/abilities that improve firepower in an aura
9 heavy support options that form a castle around that.
1 unit that forms the outer-most circle to absorb a charge


Me? I don't like the sound of that.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions without seeing how the game actually works.

Ice_can wrote:

They made it sound like tanks will now not fight in CC but instead will be able to shoot instead.

The BRB apparently now contains a load of core strategums.

Troops are still relevant by way of them being your source of obsec. Especially given they are apparently looking forward to getting feedback on their matched play missions.

Saturday conversation went about "tanks wlll kill them in melee" at which point rule guy guipped in between "and shoot other stuff",

Sounds to me shooting from, not into.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.

To be fair they still do, they just get shot at by the tanks they are in combat with now.

Yeah though outside of Guard how many actual tanks have you seen in play, repulsives which got the leman russ double shot BS buff and ???

macluvin wrote:
Half the decency of cc units was being able to lock tanks and other shooty units down... which forces you to bring bubble wrap, which from a fluff standpoint highlighted the importance of supporting armor and machine gunners and antiarmor infantry with general infantry. I wonder if it’s designed to help marines out because of the lack of bubble wrap their armies have... Their tanks being difficult and expensive to properly wrap with scouts along with the fact that they suck compared to gaurd tanks anyways meant that marine tanks would be barely worth bringing.

You mean the flying tanks that just float out of combat like nothing happened and unload 50 guns at you re-rolling everything at anything followed by re-rolling everything?

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

They made it sound like tanks will now not fight in CC but instead will be able to shoot instead.

The BRB apparently now contains a load of core strategums.

Troops are still relevant by way of them being your source of obsec. Especially given they are apparently looking forward to getting feedback on their matched play missions.

Saturday conversation went about "tanks wlll kill them in melee" at which point rule guy guipped in between "and shoot other stuff",

Sounds to me shooting from, not into.

I though it was the presenter that said that not the rules guy's as one of them shook his head.

Does anyone have a link to where I can watch he full stream ? has it been recorded on youtube or something ?

 AndrewC wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty sure they said detachments cost CP in the live stream.

They did for sure in the original stream.

This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.

Andrew

I wouldn'' be surprised if tau 9th ed faq/errata sees that restiction go poof

 Argive wrote:
Does anyone have a link to where I can watch he full stream ? has it been recorded on youtube or something ?

On the twitch channel as a subscriber is the best way.
Most if the youtube copys will be watchalongs with talking over the bit you want to hear.

The door is open for Word Bearers to get reroll morale and no penalty for allying Daemons...

I know. I'll get my coat and see myself out.

 Yarium wrote:
Okay, I'm very concerned. I love edition changes though, so I'm excited to play, but I'm concerned we're about to lose what made 8th awesome.

Infantry.

My favourite part of 40k, and my favourite part of 8th edition, was that Infantry were front and centre! 8th did this by making your Troops CRITICAL to the game for every single army. If you wanted lots of Command Points to do cool and strong stuff, you needed Troops. It sucked that some armies couldn't do this mono-faction (looking at you Custodes), but there were other ways to fix this up. The truth is, outside a few exceptions, Troops were your least effective units. They were the slowest, had the least firepower, and the least close combat capability. They only brought 2 things to bear:

#1 - They gave you board control at low cost. Some armies were based entirely around this (Termagant spam, Poxwalker spam, etc.)

#2 - They gave you CP by having a minimum 3 units required for a Battalion. If you wanted Triple Battalion, you needed NINE troop unit. That's a lot of infantry! This was honestly one of the main reasons you took Troops, and you tried your best to most optimally use these troops. It wasn't because they were good, but you stretched your dollar for all it was worth.

Well, 9th edition is now signalling that Infantry are going to be hitting the shelves again. Why?

- You get the same amount of CP no matter. So look forward to triple Spearhead Detachments. HQ's and Heavy Support and just your most effective units that devastate infantry.

- Blast weapons are now going to hit "hordes" better than ever. Guessing it's going to be "max shots" against a unit with 10 or more models, which means these blast weapons are just going to annihilate your forces if you're a horde player.

- Vehicles and Monsters are going to be able to shoot while in CC. Best case scenario, you're restricted to shooting the unit that's in combat with you. Worst case, they can shoot at anything. Either way, the hordes are going to suffer.

- Morale is going to matter LESS, not MORE. Why? You won't be taking hordes; you'll take single model units because you don't have to take multiple-model units. Those units are going to be extra weak now to the rules of the game, and the Morale mechanic is going to matter more; but really just to them. So you won't take them. If no one takes units that can suffer from morale, then morale won't matter. Welcome back to the age of fearlessness.



So, not going to lie. I'm scared. I'm scared that the main lists of 9th are going to look like this:

6 characters w/abilities that improve firepower in an aura
9 heavy support options that form a castle around that.
1 unit that forms the outer-most circle to absorb a charge


Me? I don't like the sound of that.

totally agree, and surprised more people haven't picked up on this.

We had an edition where you could bring anything you liked to the table and it sucked, Which was the whole reason they imposed the troop tax in 8th in the first place!
You need a mechanic to force competitive players to take troops or they just won't bother. Obsec is not a big enough reason.

I'm also concerned that negative modifiers won't stack beyond -1. Most of the Aeldari faction were relying on those modifiers to survive, and Aeldari have slipped down the pecking order as it stands already in competitive play.