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.

 Gadzilla666 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.

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.

Spikey Bit's VotLW podcast (also known as "The Long War") soured that one a bit for me.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Would mean loyal 32's wouldn't go anywhere though. Importance could even grow even more essential...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 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.

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.

Spikey Bit's VotLW podcast (also known as "The Long War") soured that one a bit for me.

I find it's better to just pretend those guys don't exist myself.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Would mean loyal 32's wouldn't go anywhere though. Importance could even grow even more essential...

Not if you have to pay to have them or allies don't generate CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 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.

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.

Spikey Bit's VotLW podcast (also known as "The Long War") soured that one a bit for me.

I find it's better to just pretend those guys don't exist myself.

Good point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

I sure hope Frontline is out. Good riddance.

Who the playtesters are is irrelevant if gw doesn't change their style of it. "here's premade armylists. Play and tell your opinion" doesn'" cut it

punisher357 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

I sure hope Frontline is out. Good riddance.

Probably not. Reese was saying veteran ITC players would find the missions "very familiar" so he still has an inside track on the game.

But it looks like Frontline isn't getting most (or all) of the say anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Who the playtesters are is irrelevant if gw doesn't change their style of it. "here's premade armylists. Play and tell your opinion" doesn'" cut it

Do we have any evidence that they're still doing that?

is there any evidence that GW changend how they test?

ClockworkZion wrote: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.

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?

I might have a strange point of view, but "the game" is not the core rules alone
Something were just the Core rules change but unit profiles stayed the same is not a complete re-work

people asked for GW change the unbalanced faction from 7th, the got a Streamlined core and the faction remained the same

therefore it is also pointless to ask for changing from D6 to D8 or D10, because as long as Humans are 3/3/3 and Marines 4/4/4 it does not matter how big the changes in the core rules are

So the big re-work of 40k that was promised got lost somewhere on the way and we got Copy&Paste instead
There is hope that GW learned from it that we get the changes to the factions that are needed (but as the core changes again, they will say that this is enough to balance the factions and in 2 years we are again at the point were people will call for a change as the problems we have since 3rd are still not solved)

 Sasori 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 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.

I personally don't think that would be the case due to the nature of the guys. It's my opinion that they are very good at critiquing, which means shining a light on something that is not working, but also being positive about things that do.

Another important aspect of them being play test is they were asked to test it both competitively and more narratively also (They answered a few general questions on their FB and insta accounts last night, nothing given away rule wise though).

I am going to make a guesstimation that they have chosen specific play testers to do specific jobs, and I would have though TT are more general play testers, commenting on viability of units and changes that need to be made (even if its just a point change), whilst other play testers may have been asked to play the game and find the broken combos, so more bug testing than others. That's how I'd handle it anyway.

Let's hope all those playtesters aren't getting payed to say that 9th will be good. I'm still skeptical, GW said 9th will be the best edition ever, I remember they said the same about 8th.

Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.

During 8th edition Reece (founder of Fronline Gaming and the ITC) made a fair few bold predictions and was very wrong, even in spite of being a play-tester, claiming stompas would be great, white scars would be the best marine chapter etc. and they're still doing better than fine.

really?

until now every Edition was the best Edition ever, and as changes are always made on a global level with the core, it takes some time for people to get around it to really see if it got better overall or just being different

comapring to 8th, first 6 months with Index only and regular FAQ's was better than late 7th by a lot, while early 7th was better than 6th.

Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.

So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)

I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.

Dudeface wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Some of the play testers have legit business' and that is their full time job. If they are coming out and saying it is the best edition ever, and it turns out not to be, then they are heavily discredited and could lose customers because of it, lets face it, absolutely no one likes a shill and people will vote with their wallets, and I doubt GW's pay would be worth such a loss of revenue... Its just too big a risk and no reward really and any smart business owner would not take that risk I imagine.

During 8th edition Reece (founder of Fronline Gaming and the ITC) made a fair few bold predictions and was very wrong, even in spite of being a play-tester, claiming stompas would be great, white scars would be the best marine chapter etc. and they're still doing better than fine.

Which is why I am glad they are not predominant play testers in this edition, especially as they do not actually play 40k (IMO anyway).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.

Chef is interesting, as he is evidently very good at theory hammer, but his actual playing ability lacks at times, he miss deploys a lot, and will solely hone in on the objectives first round (even if that means advancing towards orks or gene stealers etc, which is a mistake I see many players make at times), so his advice I take with salt. Theory hammer he is spot on, but theory hammer does not tend to work on the table due to the variables in play during a game etc.

Bone and Lawrence are very good though, and very measured in their opinions and playing ability. If Bones dice did not betray him and Lawrence could just stop sacrificing small animals to the dice gods for ridiculously over the probability rolls they'd be much closer matched I imagine (no evidence that Lawrence actually does that, just an assumption because that dude is do damn lucky).

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 keas66 wrote:
Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .

It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.

The box can be thick but I doubt there is much difference in plastic between all the options just some weapons there or not there between a couple of the variants. The cost of it is intense, we're not paying for " Thick box feels " It's just the ever bloating costs for moar profits while I am sure even at say, 80 which is still high, they'd have pretty good profit. Or, they could just sit back and pull in some of those extra profits from the extra expensive Cavalry units. Might as well claim it costs so much because once you buy it all your dreams will come true. Especially if your dream was to pay a mint for the Davinci Code.

Oh good, you understand how their business works. Could you explain to me what the cost breakdown vs profit of this model is in GW terms?

I feel a lot more reassured that TT is part of the playtesting group! I trust them. Let's hope GW listen's to their feedback.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I feel a lot more reassured that TT is part of the playtesting group! I trust them. Let's hope GW listen's to their feedback.

Same here. It's the part of GW listening to feedback that worries me.
We've had the latest SM codex as an example. It was good (very good I'd say) for their bottom line, but not so much for the game.

 Togusa wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 keas66 wrote:
Well I for one appreciate GDW's efforts to help me break my Warhammer 40K habit . They really are going out of their way and making that extra extra effort to get those prices up to totally outrageous levels .100$ for a Flyer ? I mean what can you do but say " thanks GDW I'll pass and thank you for saving me some money" .

It's a pretty thick box with three variants of a flyer in it.

The box can be thick but I doubt there is much difference in plastic between all the options just some weapons there or not there between a couple of the variants. The cost of it is intense, we're not paying for " Thick box feels " It's just the ever bloating costs for moar profits while I am sure even at say, 80 which is still high, they'd have pretty good profit. Or, they could just sit back and pull in some of those extra profits from the extra expensive Cavalry units. Might as well claim it costs so much because once you buy it all your dreams will come true. Especially if your dream was to pay a mint for the Davinci Code.

Oh good, you understand how their business works. Could you explain to me what the cost breakdown vs profit of this model is in GW terms?

GW explained it some time ago, the sales on the release weekend need to cover all the previous costs of the model (design, molds, casting, box art etc) otherwise it is considered "failed".
together with the expected sales on release they calculate the price of the box, so stuff GW expects to sell more on release are cheaper than those were they expect less

regarding kits like the flyer, it is a lot cheaper for GW to make one kit with an additional sprue for bits than to make 3 different kits, while they can still price it as 3 models

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.

Chef is interesting, as he is evidently very good at theory hammer, but his actual playing ability lacks at times, he miss deploys a lot, and will solely hone in on the objectives first round (even if that means advancing towards orks or gene stealers etc, which is a mistake I see many players make at times), so his advice I take with salt. Theory hammer he is spot on, but theory hammer does not tend to work on the table due to the variables in play during a game etc.

Bone and Lawrence are very good though, and very measured in their opinions and playing ability. If Bones dice did not betray him and Lawrence could just stop sacrificing small animals to the dice gods for ridiculously over the probability rolls they'd be much closer matched I imagine (no evidence that Lawrence actually does that, just an assumption because that dude is do damn lucky).

I was referring to their opinions on what csm needs for the army to play better, especially in their review of Faith and Fury, not their play style or ability. Though agreed on Lawrence's rolling, it's pretty ridiculous . Would love to see a br where he played Winters SEO's Death Guard, just to see which is more ridiculous, Lawrence's general rolling, or Winter's dr rolling . But I fear we're wondering.

On topic, regarding the day one errata, we know we'll get points changes as well as a definition of what counts as a "blast weapon", but will there be other changes? Possibly changes to some units FOC slots? (*Cough* chosen as troops *cough*).

I would doubt that is likely, that is probably a new codex if ever change.

I really do think a lot of the errata on day one could be adding keywords to datasheets so we have some clarity of what is a what in relation to new rules and strategums, for hopefully less does or doesn't this rule affect that rule.
E.g. what is an aura, so relics of plus range and this new admech strategum have some clearly defined does and doesn't interactions.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think TT will be honest with gw about any criticism they have based on their own reviews of gw products on their own channel. Whether gw will listen to them is another question. Personally I find Chef's and Bones comments on what csm needs to improve the faction quite heartening, once again, if they are listened to.

Chef is interesting, as he is evidently very good at theory hammer, but his actual playing ability lacks at times, he miss deploys a lot, and will solely hone in on the objectives first round (even if that means advancing towards orks or gene stealers etc, which is a mistake I see many players make at times), so his advice I take with salt. Theory hammer he is spot on, but theory hammer does not tend to work on the table due to the variables in play during a game etc.

Bone and Lawrence are very good though, and very measured in their opinions and playing ability. If Bones dice did not betray him and Lawrence could just stop sacrificing small animals to the dice gods for ridiculously over the probability rolls they'd be much closer matched I imagine (no evidence that Lawrence actually does that, just an assumption because that dude is do damn lucky).

I was referring to their opinions on what csm needs for the army to play better, especially in their review of Faith and Fury, not their play style or ability. Though agreed on Lawrence's rolling, it's pretty ridiculous . Would love to see a br where he played Winters SEO's Death Guard, just to see which is more ridiculous, Lawrence's general rolling, or Winter's dr rolling . But I fear we're wondering.

Hahaha, glad to know I am not alone in these musings on a Lawrence vs Winters DR rolling.

In the B-Bone, Chef and Spider I trust for play testing though (assuming they're listened to). Lawrence has been playing as CSM a bit recently (at least in OD and FV combined) so he may have a good input into some feedback for them too (which is also heartening).

I was going to post similar to Ice_can has said really, that regardless of what the core rules do add to the game, every faction is going to need extensive FAQs/erreta in the opening salvo.

I did hear them say that they're already working on the new codexs but it's unlikely we'll get a whole new fresh wave day dot so I can just speculate that we'll have a the FAQs etc immeidately after launch to make up new 'indexes' so to speak and then the usual steady stream of codexs meaning months of imbalance and new power lists. Worth it for better core mechanics though.

Ice_can wrote:
I would doubt that is likely, that is probably a new codex if ever change.

I really do think a lot of the errata on day one could be adding keywords to datasheets so we have some clarity of what is a what in relation to new rules and strategums, for hopefully less does or doesn't this rule affect that rule.
E.g. what is an aura, so relics of plus range and this new admech strategum have some clearly defined does and doesn't interactions.

A clear definition of what constitutes an aura ability would be nice, as it would clear up what could or could not be vox screamed, at least from my perspective.

As Semper points out if this errata is as extensive as they say it could function as an "index" for factions until we get new codexes, and you're right, a keyword cleanup would definitely be in order.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I would doubt that is likely, that is probably a new codex if ever change.

I really do think a lot of the errata on day one could be adding keywords to datasheets so we have some clarity of what is a what in relation to new rules and strategums, for hopefully less does or doesn't this rule affect that rule.
E.g. what is an aura, so relics of plus range and this new admech strategum have some clearly defined does and doesn't interactions.

A clear definition of what constitutes an aura ability would be nice, as it would clear up what could or could not be vox screamed, at least from my perspective.

As Semper points out if this errata is as extensive as they say it could function as an "index" for factions until we get new codexes, and you're right, a keyword cleanup would definitely be in order.

I just hope that they add in character keywords.

Yes this was snark.

 kodos wrote:
really?

Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.

So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)

Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)

8th got so many people back into the hobby (including me) which shows how good it was and how well GW has evolved as a company to accommodate the modern market.

I have great faith in them nowadays and i think they will deliver another good edition of the game.

 addnid wrote:

 kodos wrote:
really?

Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.

So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)

Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)

Hard to beat the glorious days of index book rules beginning of 8th. Easy and balanced for everyone. Now 9th is of to a very bad start considering the double bloat of myriad bonus rules and a handfull of rulebooks/sources for each army.

I understand that some people wanted more radical changes, but I am pretty optimistic. Every change they have announced seems to be a clear improvement. I think they know what they're doing.

 addnid wrote:

 kodos wrote:
really?

Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.

So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)

Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)

our play group absolutely exploded when 8th released, and has been steadily petering out basically ever since the marine release, which is probably the single biggest drop-off we saw since Gladius in 7th.

Eldar were undoubtedly more broken, but at the time we had one single eldar player who had a wraith army and no bikes, so it basically didn't affect anybody. When Gladius dropped, we had 8 marine players who could all fit their army into a gladius and take 5+ free transport vehicles, and suddenly they could only play good games with each other or with the tournament players. It isn't really "fair" and that's understandable, but just because about 1/3 of the group plays marines, when marines are broken our entire meta breaks.

New editions always see a massive return to the game. Pretty much every single non-historical wargamer has a 40k army and everybody wants to be part of a community with a massive game following, so inevitably everybody 'comes back' to the game either out of genuine curiosity or simply because it's what everyone else will be playing for at least a few weeks, even if the rulebook was literally just crayon held together by sewage.

I'd say things held very steady until the Marine releases also, but since the vast majority of people played Marines anyway the impact wasn't as great as if say... Tau or Eldar were as brokenly OP. Marine players are used to fighting other Marine players anyway.

People overall seem a lot more sceptical about 9th. There's the usual shills and white knights who'd defend GW no matter if they do as they are now, or went in a complete different, setting-destroying direction, naturally, but the buzz just feels much more subdued overall. Whilst it won't do them any harm in the short to medium term (if there's one thing the wargaming community will give GW it's an infinite amount of chances) I think a lot of people are rightly wary that we're not so much in a 7th edition situation as we are a 6th-going-into-7th and before the end of 9th there'll be so many splatbooks, expansions and all around bloat that we'll be right back to where we were in early 2017.

Of course when that happens they'll unveil their 'revolutionary and best ever' edition that just resets the clock on all that for a few years, so whatever.