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.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The gw rules team had nothing to do with forgeworld until about a year ago, at which point the 9th ed process was under way and they correctly binned off the index to start again.

FW did initial index(after being told 8th ed is coming together with public...). After that every single model rule and point cost has been GW rule team. How many CA's that is? 3 at least. And didn't custodes get rules in the meanwhile? Gw again.

I forgot about the custodes rules, those were refined and managed well be comparison.

Never the less, whinging that an OOP army with bespoke rules written by FW wasn't handed over to the main rules team, actively developed and discussed with the player base (don't remember ever seeing anyone formally address them on those either) isn't really a fair complaint in comparison to the play testers providing feedback on the next product.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
and yet when people press them on the cultist intercissor hikes they get all defensive.
GW rulesteam beeing supposedly responsive torwards them is not GW rulesteam beeing actually responsive as anyone with a FW army can tell you.
IF GW releases the dexes staggered as they do the average player will still feel Codex creep inevitably.

The rest is great and i trust them but that has been stuff we knew.

The gw rules team had nothing to do with forgeworld until about a year ago, at which point the 9th ed process was under way and they correctly binned off the index to start again.

If all the codex are written and balanced now, it doesnt matter when theyre released, unless you assume other people getting new stuff makes it better than yours by existing.

GW-rulesteam hasn't taken over since the first CA? And where would you find that?

And no on the second bit, an actual propperly for the edition written dex will still be better adapted to said edition. sure it might not be as aggrivaiting but still noticeable , especially when your dex is potentially one of those that get a later release.

Here's the warhammer communit post saying the main team are rewriting FW rules in Jan this year, which is when 9th ed would have been under way: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/01/24/new-rules-incoming-for-forge-world-modelsgw-homepage-post-2fw-homepage-post-3/

But if all codex are written at the same time, balanced at the same time, together, why is the one released later on suddenly "better"?

No existing codex has crusade content in, its safe to say every faction will get another book eventually.

I am talking about the experience of the player, not theirs.
It's a fact that tthe GW-rulesteam had more then enough time over 8th edition to fix well known issues within these indexes and didn't either via CA or FAQ.

And the second part is still true, the updated dexes will be better for the edition to play in, meaning that the more factions have a dex the few remaining will drop off/ have a worse experience, that is not whinging at them, that is a fact due to how gw decides to release their rules.

THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

Yes, I have faith that tabletop tactics would have raised it up if melee armies were totally crap in 9th edition. I am pretty sure they would have play tested melee type armies. They even said 8th edition was overly shooty as an edition. I am sure the new 9th edition would have something for melee armies.

So, let's not panic yet. We haven't see the new rules for melee yet.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
and yet when people press them on the cultist intercissor hikes they get all defensive.
GW rulesteam beeing supposedly responsive torwards them is not GW rulesteam beeing actually responsive as anyone with a FW army can tell you.
IF GW releases the dexes staggered as they do the average player will still feel Codex creep inevitably.

The rest is great and i trust them but that has been stuff we knew.

The gw rules team had nothing to do with forgeworld until about a year ago, at which point the 9th ed process was under way and they correctly binned off the index to start again.

If all the codex are written and balanced now, it doesnt matter when theyre released, unless you assume other people getting new stuff makes it better than yours by existing.

GW-rulesteam hasn't taken over since the first CA? And where would you find that?

And no on the second bit, an actual propperly for the edition written dex will still be better adapted to said edition. sure it might not be as aggrivaiting but still noticeable , especially when your dex is potentially one of those that get a later release.

Here's the warhammer communit post saying the main team are rewriting FW rules in Jan this year, which is when 9th ed would have been under way: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/01/24/new-rules-incoming-for-forge-world-modelsgw-homepage-post-2fw-homepage-post-3/

But if all codex are written at the same time, balanced at the same time, together, why is the one released later on suddenly "better"?

No existing codex has crusade content in, its safe to say every faction will get another book eventually.

I am talking about the experience of the player, not theirs.
It's a fact that tthe GW-rulesteam had more then enough time over 8th edition to fix well known issues within these indexes and didn't either via CA or FAQ.

And the second part is still true, the updated dexes will be better for the edition to play in, meaning that the more factions have a dex the few remaining will drop off/ have a worse experience, that is not whinging at them, that is a fact due to how gw decides to release their rules.

Well, the decision to outright remove FW from writing the rules for 40k was probably made at a point where 9th was already on the way, and they decided putting them together would be a decent timing (probably for time efficency)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Smaller board making more tactical? Seriously doubting their qualification if removing importance of movement makes game more tactical...

Having less room to manoeuvre doesn’t detract from careful movement. Like, at all?

depends with the ranges on guns we have nowadays and as of yet no news in regards how good terrain actually will be , yes smaller tables will lower overall manouvre value.
That said, if the cover system is good then yes they might have a point.

Also not sure on the combat armies exemple, because smaller sizes makes them better but good enough remains to be seen.

We all know gun ranges are going to be the same. The game will have the same exact "I go first and since the table is even SMALLER I can shoot with more of my guys!"
Then codex creep will happen again of course.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Smaller board making more tactical? Seriously doubting their qualification if removing importance of movement makes game more tactical...

Having less room to manoeuvre doesn’t detract from careful movement. Like, at all?

depends with the ranges on guns we have nowadays and as of yet no news in regards how good terrain actually will be , yes smaller tables will lower overall manouvre value.
That said, if the cover system is good then yes they might have a point.

Also not sure on the combat armies exemple, because smaller sizes makes them better but good enough remains to be seen.

We all know gun ranges are going to be the same. The game will have the same exact "I go first and since the table is even SMALLER I can shoot with more of my guys!"
Then codex creep will happen again of course.

And yet you'll keep playing, keep coming on here and continue to complain.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

This is pretty reassuring. They've really hit a lot of the high notes in the video.

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Smaller board making more tactical? Seriously doubting their qualification if removing importance of movement makes game more tactical...

Having less room to manoeuvre doesn’t detract from careful movement. Like, at all?

depends with the ranges on guns we have nowadays and as of yet no news in regards how good terrain actually will be , yes smaller tables will lower overall manouvre value.
That said, if the cover system is good then yes they might have a point.

Also not sure on the combat armies exemple, because smaller sizes makes them better but good enough remains to be seen.

We all know gun ranges are going to be the same. The game will have the same exact "I go first and since the table is even SMALLER I can shoot with more of my guys!"
Then codex creep will happen again of course.

And yet you'll keep playing, keep coming on here and continue to complain.

Please don't advocate piracy or tell people who don't pirate that they're a problem. I'll also probably slow down my playing a lot as I did with 8th.

Also I'd be more than willing to do a different game but you obviously have no clue how hard it is to get people in an area to go into a new game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Smaller board making more tactical? Seriously doubting their qualification if removing importance of movement makes game more tactical...

Having less room to manoeuvre doesn’t detract from careful movement. Like, at all?

depends with the ranges on guns we have nowadays and as of yet no news in regards how good terrain actually will be , yes smaller tables will lower overall manouvre value.
That said, if the cover system is good then yes they might have a point.

Also not sure on the combat armies exemple, because smaller sizes makes them better but good enough remains to be seen.

We all know gun ranges are going to be the same. The game will have the same exact "I go first and since the table is even SMALLER I can shoot with more of my guys!"
Then codex creep will happen again of course.

And yet you'll keep playing, keep coming on here and continue to complain.

I'll also probably slow down my playing a lot as I did with 8th.

Also I'd be more than willing to do a different game but you obviously have no clue how hard it is to get people in an area to go into a new game.

It clearly pains you massively so stop playing, if you're still peddling the steal the rules angle then I really dont understand what you're in this for. If you don't pay someone for a product they generally stop making it.

 Latro_ wrote:
- they think 'everything' will work well

- points going up is a good thing, games had too many models in them.

- but, they recogmened the new table sizes

- They like paying for detachments.

- First time in their opinion 40k has a robust narative system since rouge trader

Everything is fine! Nothing is broken!

Are they even allowed to voice criticisms?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
- they think 'everything' will work well

- points going up is a good thing, games had too many models in them.

- but, they recogmened the new table sizes

- They like paying for detachments.

- First time in their opinion 40k has a robust narative system since rouge trader

Everything is fine! Nothing is broken!

Are they even allowed to voice criticisms?

Maybe watch the video. They talk about how they actually saw their feedback and changes incorporated. They also talked about their strengths and the kind of things that they are good at finding in the rulesets.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

Enjoyed watching that. Thanks for posting.

I have watched the video. They level no criticisms at it whatsoever, almost as if doing so would see them punished.

A bit like video game reviewers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have watched the video. They level no criticisms at it whatsoever, almost as if doing so would see them punished.

A bit like video game reviewers.

Its not like TT hasn't criticized GW in the past. Chef goes on a rant about something GW has done wrong in basically every video involving him.

For their part the whole thing was probably hugely positive. Everything they helped on was probably a positive experience for them. But how much from them GW took out of the playtesting is unknown to them I think. I could see GW being supportive of TT's playtest findings and then not implementing any of them or adding in stuff post playtest that was never playtested which upends the hard work.

Then the edition itself could actually be pretty solid after playtesting but codex interaction completely bungles it once 9th edition books come out.

There are probably a bunch of other things that could cause TT to give a really positive outlook that I didn't think of that isn't just "they might be punished". Also they just might not want to be critical at this point, TT is unusually positive for 40k fans and media.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have watched the video. They level no criticisms at it whatsoever, almost as if doing so would see them punished.

A bit like video game reviewers.

Yeah same feeling for myself. They promise it will be absolutely great, no downsides, everything fine.
But they can't tell you more, because of NDA. Sure.

The new gaming board size is said to be really nice, balanced between shooting and close combat, tested yadda-yadda.
I doubt I will enjoy it with my pure IG army which current plan for surviving is to keep distance.
They drop one of the real reasons for the size change : cramming more people into tournament venues.
No wonder why major ITC tournament organisers changed their board sizes overnight when GW dropped the news.

Today's topic is blast weapons. Hopefully they give us more detail and less opinionated filler content.

 Sasori wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

This is pretty reassuring. They've really hit a lot of the high notes in the video.

All I heard of was that ’all the big tournaments are committed to the minimum table size’, and ’gw didn’t give a choice’, and ’small table is more efficient’.

In the hundreds of nonsense posts supporting less space to maneouvre and move there hasn’t been even one compelling gameplay balance reason to support it. It’s all nonsense made up after the fact that GW decided to sell some boards and mats, and everyone backing the change has a financial interest or even an obligation to publicly support whatever GW decides to do.

And as far as combat goes, most of the playtesters that I’ve spoken with (many who even like the small table) have said 9th is very much a shooting edition, maybe even more than 8th.

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have watched the video. They level no criticisms at it whatsoever, almost as if doing so would see them punished.

A bit like video game reviewers.

Yeah same feeling for myself. They promise it will be absolutely great, no downsides, everything fine.
But they can't tell you more, because of NDA. Sure.

The new gaming board size is said to be really nice, balanced between shooting and close combat, tested yadda-yadda.
I doubt I will enjoy it with my pure IG army which current plan for surviving is to keep distance.
They drop one of the real reasons for the size change : cramming more people into tournament venues.
No wonder why major ITC tournament organisers changed their board sizes overnight when GW dropped the news.

They likely do have NDA's no need to be snarky about it. It's something they worked on of course they're going to be positive and enthusiastic, nobody would go and tell their fans "oh by the way we made this, it's rubbish though so we hate you all". Of course there is always a chance they're being genuine and do really like it, or it is actually good?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have watched the video. They level no criticisms at it whatsoever, almost as if doing so would see them punished.

A bit like video game reviewers.

Do you expect them to start criticizing the edition before it's out, or even fully previewed for that matter? This is a video about the playtesting experience they've had, it's not a review of the edition. They can't even talk about everything yet.

They have also been critical of GW rules in their batreps, many many times. I fully expect they will give a review of the edition once they actually can.

3-11 models = min 3 hits with blast.
12+ = full hits with blast.

Still have to roll To Hit though.

And they put the cost of Cultists up?

Also not flamers, because that makes sense.

Blasts:
When you're firing at a unit that's 11 or more, you automatically get the max attacks.
I didn't catch the part right before that.

117(or 170...Eccles is a bit excitable) weapons are getting the keyword "Blast".

0-5 models roll for # of shots as normal
6-10 models, roll for # of shots, 1's or 2's are treated as threes
11+ models, automatically fire max shots

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3-11 models = min 3 hits with blast.
12+ = full hits with blast.

Still have to roll To Hit though.

And they put the cost of Cultists up?

Also not flamers, because that makes sense.

They said they were raising points on most of the game, so why are we acting like Cultists will be the only things hit hard by this?

Pretty adamant about the whole "You still roll to hit as usual" part though, which was used to stress the difference between Blasts and Flamers.

Can't be a coincidence that exorcist missile launcher had it's random profile changed to give a minimum of 3 hits can it?

Is the blast rule tied to the Horde keyword or is it any unit with that number of models?

Aash wrote:
Is the blast rule tied to the Horde keyword or is it any unit with that number of models?

Number of models.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They said they were raising points on most of the game, so why are we acting like Cultists will be the only things hit hard by this?

It's an example. They've made it far easier to kill big units, and at the same time they're increasing the price on said big units. If they're getting worse, why put their points up?

They're even talking about min-maxing Hormagaunt units with 10 or 11 models on the stream right now. That's the problem with arbitrary numbers.

 Asmodai wrote:
0-5 models roll for # of shots as normal
6-10 models, roll for # of shots, 1's or 2's are treated as threes
11+ models, automatically fire max shots

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3-11 models = min 3 hits with blast.
12+ = full hits with blast.

 xttz wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
0-5 models roll for # of shots as normal
6-10 models, roll for # of shots, 1's or 2's are treated as threes
11+ models, automatically fire max shots

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3-11 models = min 3 hits with blast.
12+ = full hits with blast.

Asmodai is correct.