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.

The "grass is greener" comment is directed at people assuming that something different is automatically better.

AA can arguably slow the game down, and while it can ensure that you get a chance to react to your opponent's actions, it can lead to a lot of people's armies chasing east other in circles as the army who wants to get into melee has to deal with a shooting army that will react to move away in direct response to every attempt to close the gap.

Basically it buffs shooting and nerfs melee without very specific considerations.

It also makes melee useless when you can just react to them making it into melee by moving away meaning, something that happens in Kill Team.

And no "get good" is not a defense for the shortcomings of a game mechanic. Nor is "well they could do X, Y or Z to fix that."

Further more it pushes a strong order of operations style of play, even more so than 8th edition does, meaning that even the slightest wrong order of acgivation can spiral into a heavy loss early, not something that lends well to getting new players into the game while they're trying to juggle so many mechanics.

Like it or not 8th has been the most accessible edition for new players and the growth of the player base over the last three years supports that very well. 9th is building on 8th to make it even more accessible while cutting down on the gamey "gotchas" that plagued parts of 8th.

And if you don't like that despite knowing the game has been the most successful it's ever been despite not moving to AA then Kill Team, and Apoc both meet your AA needs.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Soulless wrote:
So...what if a leg is blown off?

What, are you suggesting that being quadrupedal would make more sense? Four legs?! Preposterous!

Quadrupeds can't move so well with 3 legs either, so that critique doesn't really hold water.
You know they shoot horses when they break a leg in order to put them out of their misery, as they can't live on 3 legs and the pain is excruciating, right?
There are some coping mechanisms in place for most other animals, but said poor animal has to first get out of danger, and even then they are going to have a hard time.

Haha, I've seen numerous three legged cats and dogs and many of them were plenty capable and fast as f***.


More on topic though, I'm excited to hear more about the new terrain rules. They were 8ths biggest failing, imo.

Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.

And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Noted that it specifies "Battle-Forged" forces will be the ones generating CP in the Command Phase. Could mitigate a lot of the concerns about Troops being invalidated if we've still got a motivation to take a Battalion.

Like battalion generates CP? Eh that would just mean they have been flat out lying from the get go about getting away from loyal 32's etc CP batteries. They would still be there.

Rather it's likely to refer to abilities we already have to generate more CP

You don't need troops to be battleforged, that's a term used in 8th ed already to mean your army simply complies with matched play rules and the detachment structure.

Hell you get 3 cp bonus in 8th specifically for being battleforged, regardless what detachments you use.

Note the part i quoted. See "if we've got still motivation to take battalion"? What you think he was refering if not taking bat's help gaining cp?

That there is a clear lack of understanding that battleforged exists and isn't tied to troops?

"Reap-blade"...?

That will go well alongside my Cut-axes and Bang-hammers.


Here's hoping the new Warrior weapons will be called 'Pew-carbines'...

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.

And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.

This would seem to fly in the face of what they have said so far about Troops and CPs in the Q&A. Admittedly, I might be hearing what I want to hear. Still, they made several points about there no longer being the compulsion to get Troops to have CPs.

Full disclosure - I didn't like the FOC when it came in with 3rd. Units should stand on their own merits. Let each player determine what a "proper" army is.

Tying CP regen to having HQs or your Warlord alive could be interesting (like KT), but then it further incentivizes early assassination of characters. Not sure that would be a fun mechanic.

The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.

And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.

Yep, this is a good thing.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.

And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.

This would seem to fly in the face of what they have said so far about Troops and CPs in the Q&A. Admittedly, I might be hearing what I want to hear. Still, they made several points about there no longer being the compulsion to get Troops to have CPs.

Full disclosure - I didn't like the FOC when it came in with 3rd. Units should stand on their own merits. Let each player determine what a "proper" army is.

Tying CP regen to having HQs or your Warlord alive could be interesting (like KT), but then it further incentivizes early assassination of characters. Not sure that would be a fun mechanic.

No it doesn't as they said armies would -start- the game with roughly the same amount of CP (depending on what you spend. CP generation post game start can be tied to a number of things (like 1 for the turn, 1 for your warlord, 1 if you have troops, ect, ect). Some of it might even vary by mission.

Starting everyone on the same footing but rewarding the use of troops later in the game is hardly a game breaker and it doesn't contradict what we know right now.

We'll know for sure later this week though since they said more info on CP was coming.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.

And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.

Yep, this is a good thing.

Agreed. I discovered the TT Youtube channel just last year and I enjoy all their batreps. They always have good terrain density and layout, they take time to discuss in detail their lists and they test all kinds of lists from casual to competitive. Big fan of theirs.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.

And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.

Yep, this is a good thing.

Very much agreed on this.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Not likely. AA means changing the core of the game from the ground up and means another core rules reset and stsrting from near scratch.

Additionally AA comes with it's own issues and isn't automatically better than the current ruleset. I feel a lot of the AA arguements are a "grass is greener" mindset that figures the different thing is the better thing automatically.

1. The game needs a rehaul from the ground up anyway
2. What's the best "grass is greener" point you have then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leetown wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
UGO/IGO means skip this edition.

Maybe 10th will have alternate activations that actually make for a playable game.

Normally I am just a lurker, but I registered for the sole purpose to say: this comment, along with your signature, is the neckbeard-iest thing I have ever seen.

You complain in your sig about players that whine about RAW, yet here you are, whining about RAW to the extent that you refuse to play. My gaming group has been happy to experiment with house rules outside of the 8th ed dogma, maybe find some likeminded players and actually enjoy the game again?

You can find a like minded group of people to experiment with Snakes and Ladders but chances are most people won't defend the core rules of it

Alternating activations can take way longer, alternating activations heavily emphasize extraordinarily impactful single units while making things like small troop units actively detrimental, while the overall level of first turn advantage is reduced, it's certainly still there, there's less room for 'tech' style units due to economy of activation. Etc.

1. The game is already long. If you want a short game, play a smaller point level
2. IGOUGO already did that especially with the invention of Strats to throw on those units!
3. You say "less incentive to run MSU" like that's a bad thing somehow.
4. Tech style units die on the first or second turn. Good job taking them and not going first!

Honestly your only real point is #1 about game length, and if an additional half hour is that bad for you in order to actually do something instead of WAITING said half an hour to actually do something, why wouldn't you consider that a win?

having played games with AA it can take a good deal longer as people think through EVERY unit they move. partly because AA allows for some intreasting tactics. such as deliberatly using one of your units to bait out another unit. in 40k this would be a case of moving a low cost squad into a position to get chopped by Khorne Bezerkers in an attempt to lure those Bezerkers into the open where you can kill em. AA is great for games that have it, but having played a few games with it, it simply won't work in 40k barring a major change of the system

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.

And crucially, like every player they have their favorite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.

Yep, this is a good thing.

They're great, I just hope they provide actual critical feedback.

My main concern is that a lot of playtesters may not be open and critical with their feedback for concern over getting early releases or not getting invited back. The Tabletop Tactics are a great bunch though.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.

And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.

Yep, this is a good thing.

Oh, they're the ones playtesting now? Frontline is out?

 insaniak wrote:
"Reap-blade"...?

Yeah that was a choice, was't it?

I don't get why they just don't call it a Hyperphase Glaive.
I mean, it looks kind of like a Glaive. Well, without the pole, anyway.



Reap-Blade sounds terrible.
It sounds like something Penny Arcade would come up with to make fun of bad writing.
It doesn't even feel good on the tongue; who would put a B sound after a P sound?
If you say it at normal speed you get Reaplade, and that's even worse.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The guys from Tabletop Tactics play testing is genuinely a good thing IMO. They play across a broad spectrum of 40k, with narrative up to quite heavily competitive, including the ITC format and they champion making all units viable for all armies.

And crucially, like every player they have their favourite armies, they play nearly every army across the 4x core play testers and they are fair about all, and tend to play all armies as well. Whilst the play testing for 8th edition, being outside was a progressive step, the choice of play testers was poor IMO, especially with the format they played and the fairly blatant bias' displayed by them.

Yep, this is a good thing.

Oh, they're the ones playtesting now? Frontline is out?

There are a few playtesters we know of so far:
https://youtu.be/0WYKKUDwxbE

Well the system needs reworking anyway so why is that a bad thing?

The system got reworked to make 8th and that got improved to make 9th. It doesn't "need" a reworking. Stop presenting your taste as objective fact. This thread is for news, keep your AA system wishliting to the general 40k thread that's already open.

It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?

They are like those asking to go back to RT when 3rd released. In 2-3 editions they will fade in obscurity as they become the new old-hammers.

 Galas wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?

They are like those asking to go back to RT when 3rd released. In 2-3 editions they will fade in obscurity as they become the new old-hammers.

I think the technical term for them is grognards.

Both AA and IGOUGO are bad, the real fun happens when you do hidden orders simultaneous activation like X-Wing on a meth bender. Each unit gets a movement dial and actions pips, toss in a couple of command point strategies, and it should only take a few hours to finish the first turn.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?

They are like those asking to go back to RT when 3rd released. In 2-3 editions they will fade in obscurity as they become the new old-hammers.

I think the technical term for them is grognards.

With the irony being that only grognards use the term grognards to describe...grognards?

 Alpharius wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's odd that people are going "The system needs a complete re-work!". It did get one. It was called 8th Edition. Did you not notice?

They are like those asking to go back to RT when 3rd released. In 2-3 editions they will fade in obscurity as they become the new old-hammers.

I think the technical term for them is grognards.

With the irony being that only grognards use the term grognards to describe...grognards?

I mean it takes one to know one. I still remember 3rd ed's bolter rules...

Amen brother!

(2nd Edition's "Overwatch" rules still get me upset!)

Either way, I'm looking forward to 9th Edition!

Grognard and proud!

I’ll also accept “living ancestor” for those who remember the squat lore.

 Nevelon wrote:
Grognard and proud!

I’ll also accept “living ancestor” for those who remember the squat lore.

What about "Long Beard" so you can grumble?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Grognard and proud!

I’ll also accept “living ancestor” for those who remember the squat lore.

What about "Long Beard" so you can grumble?

Bah! Harumph.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Moving back on topic, I suspect that armies that have troop units will gain additional CP each turn over armies that don't. It provides a sort of trade off for not taking troops, but also pays you for a troop tax of you take them.

And it's not like most of those FOC don't have room for at least one troops unit so it's not like you can't slip a single troops unit or two into a Vanguard without spending all your points on them if you want the bonus CP.

While I agree that taking troops should be incentivized, I think one of the biggest problems with that is that some factions have excellent troops who don't feel like a "tax" when taken, while others have more lackluster options that were generally only taken in 8th to fill out detachments. See intercessors vs csm for a good example. Hopefully 9th will address this by making those lackluster troops better options.

As for the best term for "grognards", I prefer Veterans of the Long War.

Pure speculation, but maybe troops will play a role in to how many command points are generated each turn? Get 1 extra command point for each troops unit on the board during your command phase? Would paint a massive target on each troops unit's head, but it would be incentive. How you'd balance that for horde armies is beyond me, but I'm just spitballing.