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.

That would fit in perfectly with the time-table that was leaked a few days ago, wouldn't it?

Which means, 9th will be here by the end of July.

Kdash wrote:
So, as it stands -

Pre-Orders for War of the Spider are this coming weekend. 2 weeks after the pre-orders for Engine War.


Based on that, we can expect Pariah to be up for pre-order on the 27th/28th, and then 9th to be 2 weeks after that, on the 11th/12th of July.

Whether or not the new release will have a 2 week pre-order or not remains to be seen.

Wel there was rumour pariah would be 4.7 and then next week 2 week preorder. That sounds feasible. Remember there's 2 AOS armies to be released as well. One(elves) rather big release so that could easily be 2 week release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
That would fit in perfectly with the time-table that was leaked a few days ago, wouldn't it?

Which means, 9th will be here by the end of July.

Not quite. He's estimating week sooner than previous rumour.

Though it's about that. GW wouldn't put hype this soon started if it was august/september release and there's still bunch of releases so june is too high especially if they don't want to be just 40k for like 2 months. AOS players are waiting for their elves and giants.

tneva82 wrote:
Not quite. He's estimating week sooner than previous rumour.

I see. So you are probably right and we'll have one week of AoS/random specialist games in between.

Though it's about that. GW wouldn't put hype this soon started if it was august/september release and there's still bunch of releases so june is too high especially if they don't want to be just 40k for like 2 months. AOS players are waiting for their elves and giants.

It wouldn't be the first time GW hyped something in the recent past and went silent for a month or so afterwards

Didn't the Ts&Cs for the newsletter competition say the prize would ship in july? Assuming that is a copy of the new starter set that suggests a release in july doesn't it? Plus I agree a release date of august or September for 9th is too far out given they revealed it end of May.

Yeah the box is in july so unless the prize also is in advance it speaks strongly of july. Wasn't 8th ed in july as well? June previews, july release.

Pretty much everything points to july so only question is date. And all in all IMO the 25th for in store day seems reasonable. Still 1 PA book to release, likely something for AOS(seems hard to believe they would get nothing until like august-september...) and 2 week preorder is fairly normal for new edition.

Well either way I doubt it's more than week off in any case.

Crazy thought: GWs fiscal year is ending, so maybe the push for a pre-order of 9th edition on the 27th of June to offset Corona loses somewhat?

I bet the missing AoS release before the 9th edition is the Lumineth box.

Ragnar69 wrote:
Crazy thought: GWs fiscal year is ending, so maybe the push for a pre-order of 9th edition on the 27th of June to offset Corona loses somewhat?

It already ended on the 31st of May.

Ragnar69 wrote:
Crazy thought: GWs fiscal year is ending, so maybe the push for a pre-order of 9th edition on the 27th of June to offset Corona loses somewhat?

Apart from fiscal year already over the july is fairly common month for big releases anyway. Corona is first time so pretty weird to imagine previous july new editions etc were to set up for this corona virus

Rather july was release month from the get-go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitane wrote:
I bet the missing AoS release before the 9th edition is the Lumineth box.

Very likely. I could see that coming next and solo boxes week after that.

tneva82 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitane wrote:
I bet the missing AoS release before the 9th edition is the Lumineth box.

Very likely. I could see that coming next and solo boxes week after that.

There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.

If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?

Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.

We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.

You've not provided any proof for your claims. You just stated them first.

Point stands, we'll know when they do the unboxing since I've made fairly clear predictions about that cover and what I think is going to happen with Necrons if only because double dipping fits their modus operandi over pissing everyone off by releasing the codex right after they drop Pariah.

It's entirely possible we get a similar approach to either Sisters or CSM, where:

a) Pariah only has Szeras datasheet & narrative content for Necrons, then they get a brand new codex in the same month
b) Pariah has new rules for Necrons that extend the current codex like Vigilus. Players can either buy the new version of the codex to get all the rules, or buy Pariah to supplement their current codex.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
There isn't a chance in hell that the Necron codex hasn't been started yet.It will be done and ready to go at this stage, without a doubt.

Started was definitely too strong of a statement, but regardless, I don't think it's coming out following the release of 9th. I think what we're going to see is just what they said was coming: Forge World updates and Deathwatch.

...they've said on stream that we can expect new SM & Necron books following 9th. Both will be out within 3 months of the boxset, just like what happened with 8th. Still not sure why you'd think this would be the case

Honestly, I think they'd instill a lot more confidence and optimism if they previewed some kind of rule that did something to address some of the absolutely bonkers deadliness inherent in the game.

Price hikes being somewhat disproportional on cheap horde units, smaller board size, vehicles shooting into combat, max hits from blasts etc would make a lot more sense if we had a context to know things are going to die a lot less quickly, so the statistical distinction between a cultist and a guardsman or a grot and a cultist would matter a whole lot more than they do now.

As it turns out, my dining room table is just about the recommended min table size for the new missions (go figure, maybe they didn't make that bit up) and my partner and I played a game this weekend. And they've played once or twice but not since the launch of 8th when the game got a whole lot simpler and easier to quickly pick up. A few things I noticed

1) We had 1500 points per side, both playing orks, and we tried to have a 24" no man's land in the middle, and basically stuffed a 10" deployment zone chock full of dudes

2) the most common remark from my partner throughout the game was "Wow, just dead? that quick?" The first time they fired a KMK at my squigbuggy - dead. The first time I shot a min squad of flash gitz at a pair of killa kanz - dead. 5 nobs hop out of a bonebreaka and charge a boyz squad - dead boyz. It was a pretty typical game of 8th, by the end of round 3 it was clear one side was coming out on top (I blame the loss on a trio of KMKs rolling nothing but 5s and 6s for shots two turns in a row) and their remark was that it definitely felt like we had put so much on the table that the rules required a ton of it to just get taken off really quick in order for there to be any kind of game, and both of us had a ton of different abilities to get +1s and reroll 1s and extra shots and the one big defense bonus was "take these 5 dice and get yahtzee on just 6s or your thing dies"

I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.

I can see all these possibilities that would heavily tone down the game and make it actually last the ~5-7 turns that missions seem to still be designed around without one side getting wiped or severely diminished to like 1/4 by turn 3.

But the thing is, none of them have been previewed as anything but vague hints. We have a lot more of a concrete understanding of how things will be getting deadlier than we do about how things will be getting less deadly.

 xttz wrote:


There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.

I expect some of that be post 9th ed releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.

They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.

As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.

 Overread wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
if 8th edition is any indication there will be a month or so between faction releases

I can see GW slowing down for 9th.
8th was a bit "reboot" session for GW, same as AoS 2.0 was. In terms of releases the core focus was getting all the armies codex'ed up and up to date in one big go. I can envision that with the codex for 8th edition working in 9th, GW might well slow things down so that updates are bigger. Shifting back a bit to the older pattern of a slower rate, but with bigger changes. Eg the Necron update is clearly going to be pretty huge with not just updates to old models, but big additions to the arm as well with several new units and leaders and perhaps new additions to existing units getting updated models (eg warriors appear to have a new weapon).

Slowing down and doing bigger updates in model terms makes the new codex far more viable to buy for gamers, esp considering some are not that old.

I envision the same for AoS 3.0 as well.

With around 30 Codexes to get through, even 1/month only leaves a relatively small bit of spare space before the launch of 10th edition in July 2023. Since they usually slow down a bit over the summer and sometimes skip a December Codex, the release schedule doesn't have a lot of slack in it.

That assumes every faction will get codex in 9th ed but there's plenty of cases in before where you have codex every 2nd or even every 3rd edition.

tneva82 wrote:

 xttz wrote:


There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.

I expect some of that be post 9th ed releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.

They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.

As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.

You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.

Maybe like an above poster mentioned there's stacking via -1 to hit roll and -1 to BS. I don't know. I'm saying none of these things have been previewed in any kind of concrete fashion, and personally a lot of my frustration is just stemming from the fact that a large amount of my complaints with 8th just boil down to "everything dies way, way too fast, and games take a long time to resolve due to all the dice and measuring but you pretty much make 1-2 decisions total over the course of a game with most of your units".

If I could have a game with the breadth of different rules that you find in 8th, coupled with the number of turns you get to play from Apoc, I'd consider it the best edition of 40k ever made. Honestly couldn't give much of a gak about what the inter-faction balance or whatever is in that edition, space marines could have a 70% competitive winrate if I could play an average game and go til about turn 4-5 before it's clear who the winner will be.

tneva82 wrote:
That assumes every faction will get codex in 9th ed but there's plenty of cases in before where you have codex every 2nd or even every 3rd edition.

What they do with all the myriad of Marine Sub faction Codexes and Supplements will be important.

the_scotsman wrote:
[
You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.

Leman russ? Not the primarch but tank used by IG.

Sentinel.

GSC in same way.

Tau tanks might also have same issue.

But yeah let's just forget that universal rule and let those be screwed eh?

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

 xttz wrote:


There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.

I expect some of that be post 9th ed releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.

They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.

As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.

You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.

Maybe like an above poster mentioned there's stacking via -1 to hit roll and -1 to BS. I don't know. I'm saying none of these things have been previewed in any kind of concrete fashion, and personally a lot of my frustration is just stemming from the fact that a large amount of my complaints with 8th just boil down to "everything dies way, way too fast, and games take a long time to resolve due to all the dice and measuring but you pretty much make 1-2 decisions total over the course of a game with most of your units".

If I could have a game with the breadth of different rules that you find in 8th, coupled with the number of turns you get to play from Apoc, I'd consider it the best edition of 40k ever made. Honestly couldn't give much of a gak about what the inter-faction balance or whatever is in that edition, space marines could have a 70% competitive winrate if I could play an average game and go til about turn 4-5 before it's clear who the winner will be.

The deadliness of the game definitely needs to come down. It really comes down to how good the new terrain rules are doesn't it? Nothing else they've been bragging about would address the problem.

Mr Morden wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That assumes every faction will get codex in 9th ed but there's plenty of cases in before where you have codex every 2nd or even every 3rd edition.

What they do with all the myriad of Marine Sub faction Codexes and Supplements will be important.

I'm guessing we'll get more, not less. I can feel gw eyeing up mine and other csm players wallets.....

tneva82 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
[
You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.

Leman russ? Not the primarch but tank used by IG.

Sentinel.

GSC in same way.

Tau tanks might also have same issue.

But yeah let's just forget that universal rule and let those be screwed eh?

....So, you just said that penalties to hit would be capped at -1, period.

And then you bring up a bunch of things that are, if memory serves, BS4+.

-1 to hit would put them at BS5+, yes?

Or are we saying the exact same thing here: That -1 to hit ABILITIES would be capped, but maybe -1 to hit from OTHER SOURCES (e.g. terrain, moving with heavy weapons, long range, other potential sources) could cause a BS4+ model to be stacked up to the point where they could be not hitting at all, and they would need a rule then making 6s always hit?

The degradation tables. Monsters and vehicles often degrade to WS6+ and BS6+ on the last bracket.

There even are cases that can't hit at all when close to death.

the_scotsman wrote:

You're really of the opinion that they put in that

And then you bring up a bunch of things that are, if memory serves, BS4+.

Ah so you are in opinion that if -1 is max and russ always shoots on 4+ before modifiers GW will remove whole degrade table?

Ummm...Any evidence for that? Nobody but you so far has hinted degrade table where leman russ has BS6+ listed will be removed.

Or are you saying degraded russ should auto miss? NOTHING IN THE GAME WHATSOEVER SHOULD AUTOMISS! Period.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

 xttz wrote:


There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.

I expect some of that be post 9th ed releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.

They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.

As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.

You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.

Maybe like an above poster mentioned there's stacking via -1 to hit roll and -1 to BS. I don't know. I'm saying none of these things have been previewed in any kind of concrete fashion, and personally a lot of my frustration is just stemming from the fact that a large amount of my complaints with 8th just boil down to "everything dies way, way too fast, and games take a long time to resolve due to all the dice and measuring but you pretty much make 1-2 decisions total over the course of a game with most of your units".

If I could have a game with the breadth of different rules that you find in 8th, coupled with the number of turns you get to play from Apoc, I'd consider it the best edition of 40k ever made. Honestly couldn't give much of a gak about what the inter-faction balance or whatever is in that edition, space marines could have a 70% competitive winrate if I could play an average game and go til about turn 4-5 before it's clear who the winner will be.

The deadliness of the game definitely needs to come down. It really comes down to how good the new terrain rules are doesn't it? Nothing else they've been bragging about would address the problem.

To give credit where credit is due, a much smaller starting CP pool for the average army and mission rules that commonly require units to give up their psychic/shooting/fight phases to score points are two things that do help.Just not, IMO, that much.

The game I played this weekend was played with no CPs at all, and we had 6 objectives with progressive scoring and the new "raise the flag" rule where to score a point a unit would give up their turn after the movement phase. But we still had moments that garnered a "wait, what?" reaction several times where a shooting unit like a KMK would roll fairly well - not crazy well, but decently - at near max range, at a medium vehicle sitting in cover, and just - kaboom, gone. 6 shots, 4 hits, 2 wounds, no saves, rolled an 8 for damage, welp that's a dead deff dread, it never got to move!

I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th

 bullyboy wrote:
I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th

Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th

Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.

Well given it's been the booby prize faction bonus of the edition so far I'd not be against it being worth something now.

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th

Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.

Well given it's been the booby prize faction bonus of the edition so far I'd not be against it being worth something now.

Pre dev doctrine nerfs IFs were the second strongest marine subfaction. I would think they're not particularly far from dominating the competitive meta right now.

Kitane wrote:
The degradation tables. Monsters and vehicles often degrade to WS6+ and BS6+ on the last bracket.

There even are cases that can't hit at all when close to death.

Yup. There's a Tyranid stratagem for fighting after death, but since they fight on the lowest bracket its decidedly lukewarm for most MC characters.

Or are we saying the exact same thing here: That -1 to hit ABILITIES would be capped, but maybe -1 to hit from OTHER SOURCES (e.g. terrain, moving with heavy weapons, long range, other potential sources) could cause a BS4+ model to be stacked up to the point where they could be not hitting at all, and they would need a rule then making 6s always hit?

They did clarify during one of the streams that while dice modifiers would be capped at +/-1 that this would not impact Characteristic modifiers.

I immediately thought, Heavy is going to be changed from "-1 Hit modifier" if the model moved to "Increase the model's BS by 1 (i.e. BS 3+ becomes 4+)". That would preserve that adjustment to accuracy while still allowing units to gain their personal defensive -1 to-hit modifiers.

 N.I.B. wrote:

Kitane wrote:
The degradation tables. Monsters and vehicles often degrade to WS6+ and BS6+ on the last bracket.

There even are cases that can't hit at all when close to death.

Yup. There's a Tyranid stratagem for fighting after death, but since they fight on the lowest bracket its decidedly lukewarm for most MC characters.

Ah, fair enough. I had forgotten the degradation tables put many models at BS6+ base.

I suppose that is a possibility. i hope not, as 8th would probably still feel a little deadly if you applied a gamewide -1 to hit to all units all the time.