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.

for something completely different:

All articels about board size claim that this was done to fit the standard dining table size

which is just wrong for 60"x44" at 2k points

in one of the latest comments it was a little bit more detailed and "common table size" was mentioned together with 30"x44"
which makes a lot more sense

but, if GW aimes for 30x44 being the common size of the game to be played, do we know at which size the playtesting was done?
if that one also focused on the smaller board, which means 500-1000 point games, we might see bigger problems ahead with 2000 points than expected

I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.

The only gamey thing was the idea that you could fall back with no penalty in 8th to begin with, if you weren't wrapped.

Fall back in 8th was the ridiculous gimmick, not wrapping. The fact that you can't move through models is a fundamental part of the game design. You shouldn't have needed to do it to begin with, but it made complete sense within the basic rules the game is structured around.

tneva82 wrote:

Ah yes playtesters who have played the game are just hyperboling and incomplete data

Says a lot about playtesting quality(or lack of it) if they do it on incompete data!

Or the "wait for full rules" crowd is again, like 100th time out of 100 cases in past 2 decades, AGAIN. As usual. That crowd never uses logical thinking and just are "it is fine it is fine it is fine" mantra sticking head into sand.

So they are wrong 100 time out of100

The playtesters aren't the ones saying stuff like "melee is still dead", "hordes are dead", ECT ect.

Look, I am not against bring mad about releases or even criticizing GW when they drop the ball, but I will always believe that having the actual complete rules in front of you is more important for forming a proper opinion than hearsay, hyperbole and incomplete information.

There are a lot of army projects I didn't do in 8th because of how the game handled certain elements (like melee), so believe me when I say I am just as invested, if not more so, in finding out if the armies I want to play are still hosed or not. But until I know for sure I'll be hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The only gamey thing was the idea that you could fall back with no penalty in 8th to begin with, if you weren't wrapped.

Fall back in 8th was the ridiculous gimmick, not wrapping. The fact that you can't move through models is a fundamental part of the game design. You shouldn't have needed to do it to begin with, but it made complete sense within the basic rules the game is structured around.

I think the issue is that it feels gamey because you have to play the system just to make the system feel like it's working correctly.

To be fair, I don't think 8th ed was broken at launch. 8th ed was fine. I mean, could definitely use some improvement, but I don't think there was anything broken about 8th ed at launch. Did codex creep break things ? of course, but that was the problem of codex creep and special rules or selected "broken" units on codex launch, like the Castallan. It wasn't 8th ed core rules being broken at the start.

making fall back a strat strikes me as a fairly logical fix for fall abck. although it could have a bit of a domino effect with some specialist strats out there

BrianDavion wrote:
making fall back a strat strikes me as a fairly logical fix for fall abck. although it could have a bit of a domino effect with some specialist strats out there

There are still unrevealed universal strats so definitely still a possibility.

 Leth wrote:
I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.

It resulted in melee twisting itself into ridiculous knots as well. Picture a bunch of orcs charging down a unit of guardmen. Maybe the whole squad could have made it into close combat. But instead, said massive orcs would touch with just one model and fight with that one model, do zero kills, let the guardsmen swing back with all their attacks, and then consolidate, hence tri pointing and preventing said squad from falling back. It was a valid tactic because you didn't want to get shot up in the opponent's turn. But narratively this is literally what happened based on the above.

Big squad of orcs charge down ten guardsmen. Orcs go :" wahhhhhhhh !!!!"

Then, orcs inexplicably make the charge, but halt just outside of melee range. "Wahhhhh!!!!! screeches to a halt, and only one orc swings".

The rest of the orcs, stand there like idiots, buff out their chests and taunt the guardsmen "Just swing at us! give us your best shot!"

Guardsmen pile in, swing their attacks, and take out a few orcs.

Now, the orcs consolidate into battle and tri point the guardsmen. They then kill them in the opponent phase.


I mean, its a good game play... but narratively, it was so stupid? I mean, look at the above. Why would the orcs do something like that in an actual battle field? lol It would make zero sense.... lol

Not nearly as stupid as the guard unit then being able to calmly march away taking zero casualties as the orks stand there waiting to be blown off the table by the whole rest of the army, though.

8th edition combat mechanics were fundamentally stupid. Wrapping was the least of the problem with those rules.

yeah, the guard unit being able to calmly fall back while the orcs just stand there was just as stupid too. I totally agree !

yukishiro1 wrote:
Not nearly as stupid as the guard unit then being able to calmly march away taking zero casualties as the orks stand there waiting to be blown off the table by the whole rest of the army, though.

8th edition combat mechanics were fundamentally stupid. Wrapping was the least of the problem with those rules.

Falling Back reflects retreating (presumably tactically). That’s been a real thing since combat began IRL.

It doesn’t always work, and indeed was usually catastrophic, but not having any mechanism for it prior to 8th was pretty ridiculous.

Yeah, I got nothing against retreating (if thats what falling back was supposed to mean). But retreating while suffering zero casualties while the attackers just stand there frozen like idiots was totally ridiculous.

 Eldarain wrote:
Slowing down the movement of the fastest melee outliers and most reliable deep strike melee threats.

Improve terrain rules and how units interact with it. (It appears they've done this)

Move falling back to the end of the shooting phase. You want to avoid getting hacked apart? Fine, run but you're not getting rewarded with a full shooting phase. Requiring some counter assault elements makes the game more dynamic and reduces the no brainer shooting skew currently without downsides.

* Expand Tau by finally putting the "Empire" into it by adding melee centric auxiliaries. A one phase army is a balancing nightmare.

Great idea, I love it ! End of shooting phase + forbidden to assault I’d say

 Eldarain wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
making fall back a strat strikes me as a fairly logical fix for fall abck. although it could have a bit of a domino effect with some specialist strats out there

There are still unrevealed universal strats so definitely still a possibility.

Maybe fallback will require passing some kind of leadership test. It would explain why they said rievers and Night Lords could do things with the new morale mechanics. Maybe those -1s to leadership will actually do something this time.

 Leth wrote:
I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.

Honestly, I don't mind tri-pointing as much as combatants drifting around each other during consolidate and pile-ins.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
To be fair, I don't think 8th ed was broken at launch. 8th ed was fine. I mean, could definitely use some improvement, but I don't think there was anything broken about 8th ed at launch. Did codex creep break things ? of course, but that was the problem of codex creep and special rules or selected "broken" units on codex launch, like the Castallan. It wasn't 8th ed core rules being broken at the start.

As long as the same company produces both the rules and the minis, this is how it will be for forseable future.

I have ventured onto ww2 gaming for relevant comaprison, in addition to 40k, and that was a blessing in that regard. Minis are defined by history, not by companies, and you play the rule set you like best.

Melee in 8th edition was utterly ridiculous. So my big Trygon that towers over all infantry, is unable to assault said infantry if they happen to be over 2" off the ground.

Yeah, that is some dumb crap right there.

The changes so far sound like they are actually trying to fix a lot of the gamey crap that people exploited... however the system will still no doubt be IGOUGO, and as time marches on it will be loaded with too many rules and what not that break it. GW have a record of starting off with a clean system, only to clutter it within a few months. I think this is partly due to not having a consistent design team through an edition's shelf life. Too many times we have seen designers come and go, and each one wanting to add their mark onto an edition. Hence by the end of its shelf life it is nothing like what it was at initial conception.

The problematic skew towards shooty armies is in no small part due to the fact that the shooting phase is IGO-UGO, but the combat phase isn't.

If the entire combat phase mirrored the shooting phase, i.e. on my turn I do all my stuff, charges, fights, etc.. no silly stuff like Overwatch, Interrupts or opponent's units fighting in my turn, it'd be a lot better.

The by far weakest part of the current system is the one that is not fully IGO-UGO. What needs to happen is for the combat (and the game more fully) to move towards pure IGO-UGO, not move away from it.

I haven't seem much Tau whining here on dakka, kudos to you Tau players out there on dakka.
But on other forums... Man... If I still played Tau, and nknew that many people hated playing against my codex, well i'd be happy for any change which would reduce the reluctancy. Insteads of whining.
Tau still have lots of flyoing units which can still (from what we know so far) just fall back and shoot. And they sill have the infamous saviour protocols so...
If fall back becomes a strat then yes, I would understand the salt

The only problem I see for Tau is that their Army wide Special rule now costs CP

this means without CP, Tau don't have an army wide special rules while other factions not only have 1 but several rules and get them for free

But maybe other Army Special Rules will cost CP too, like Reanimation Protocol or the different Marine buffs
Than things would be equal again

PS: Day 1 FAQ won't solve those problems, as with that many changes to the core there would be a full codex or index like Errata be needed to get everything back in line

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.

It resulted in melee twisting itself into ridiculous knots as well. Picture a bunch of orcs charging down a unit of guardmen. Maybe the whole squad could have made it into close combat. But instead, said massive orcs would touch with just one model and fight with that one model, do zero kills, let the guardsmen swing back with all their attacks, and then consolidate, hence tri pointing and preventing said squad from falling back. It was a valid tactic because you didn't want to get shot up in the opponent's turn. But narratively this is literally what happened based on the above.

Big squad of orcs charge down ten guardsmen. Orcs go :" wahhhhhhhh !!!!"

Then, orcs inexplicably make the charge, but halt just outside of melee range. "Wahhhhh!!!!! screeches to a halt, and only one orc swings".

The rest of the orcs, stand there like idiots, buff out their chests and taunt the guardsmen "Just swing at us! give us your best shot!"

Guardsmen pile in, swing their attacks, and take out a few orcs.

Now, the orcs consolidate into battle and tri point the guardsmen. They then kill them in the opponent phase.


I mean, its a good game play... but narratively, it was so stupid? I mean, look at the above. Why would the orcs do something like that in an actual battle field? lol It would make zero sense.... lol

So just to be shure, your interpetation of the battle through an abstract game system is that it is an litteral represrntation as well? So all units stand around and move one at a time, waiting their turn? Sounds rather stiff.

I remember this computergame where the pendulum swinged in the other direction, for realisemn. In that game you have to manually fuel all your tanks and put bullits on your units because they could runn out of it. Realistic yes. Was it fun to play? For maiby. But having the stratagem 'ekstra genades' for one CP works well enough for me as an abstract interpetation instead of having to pre arm units with ekstra grenades beforehand. I want my games fun, not realistic.

 Niiai wrote:

So just to be shure, your interpetation of the battle through an abstract game system is that it is an litteral represrntation as well?.

If you add a mechanic to the game, because it was there in real life too, you should also add the consequences that it had in real life

if retreat would need any kind of test and/or the fleeing unit would get any kind of damage (moral test, if it fails the unit is destroyed) it would be something different

but this is an overall problem with GW writing rules, adding something because it is cool or because they need to make the game more fun, but never think it thru and leave it half finished

Same that they keep alternating player turns for shooting, but melee Alpha-Strike would be too strong that way therefore they change close combat to alternating activations and add player reactions
(would be less of a problem if melee units would get a free charge as well if a unit targets them in the shooting phase....)

 kodos wrote:
The only problem I see for Tau is that their Army wide Special rule now costs CP

this means without CP, Tau don't have an army wide special rules while other factions not only have 1 but several rules and get them for free

But maybe other Army Special Rules will cost CP too, like Reanimation Protocol or the different Marine buffs
Than things would be equal again

PS: Day 1 FAQ won't solve those problems, as with that many changes to the core there would be a full codex or index like Errata be needed to get everything back in line

Yeah though in all honesty alot depends on the new FW rules and what happens with points and the Day 1 FAQ, the Tsu codex has some terrible internal balance issues and this might just be the kick that GW needs to try and address the issue.

 Niiai wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.

It resulted in melee twisting itself into ridiculous knots as well. Picture a bunch of orcs charging down a unit of guardmen. Maybe the whole squad could have made it into close combat. But instead, said massive orcs would touch with just one model and fight with that one model, do zero kills, let the guardsmen swing back with all their attacks, and then consolidate, hence tri pointing and preventing said squad from falling back. It was a valid tactic because you didn't want to get shot up in the opponent's turn. But narratively this is literally what happened based on the above.

Big squad of orcs charge down ten guardsmen. Orcs go :" wahhhhhhhh !!!!"

Then, orcs inexplicably make the charge, but halt just outside of melee range. "Wahhhhh!!!!! screeches to a halt, and only one orc swings".

The rest of the orcs, stand there like idiots, buff out their chests and taunt the guardsmen "Just swing at us! give us your best shot!"

Guardsmen pile in, swing their attacks, and take out a few orcs.

Now, the orcs consolidate into battle and tri point the guardsmen. They then kill them in the opponent phase.


I mean, its a good game play... but narratively, it was so stupid? I mean, look at the above. Why would the orcs do something like that in an actual battle field? lol It would make zero sense.... lol

So just to be shure, your interpetation of the battle through an abstract game system is that it is an litteral represrntation as well? So all units stand around and move one at a time, waiting their turn? Sounds rather stiff.

It's trying to make some "real life" sense out of gameplay. Tripointing is so far from what you would expect from a real battle it is no longer abstraction. It's completely detached from the feeling of a sci-fi battle. Chess is a very well designed, fun game. But abstraction is so strong it no longer bears any ressemblance to a real battle. Is that what you want?

it's tri pointing basicly surrounding your opponent so he can't retreat?

BrianDavion wrote:
it's tri pointing basicly surrounding your opponent so he can't retreat?

It’s surrounding one man so his entire squad can’t retreat.

"Quick men! We need to advance backwards. These blasted Xenos are besting us!"
"But Commissar, sir, there are three Orks surrounding Corporal Jenkins. He can't get out."
"Come on humie! We'z got'cha lad 'ere. 'Ez goin' no where!"
"But it's just Jenkins, the rest of us can simply advance backwards to this ridge."
"I'm sorry Commissar, but because of Jenkins the rest of us have to stay here."
"But... that doesn't make any sense."
"War neva duz, humie."
"Don't get philosophical with me, Ork scum!"
"It neva changez, neevah."
"I said stop that."
"Give us our squadmate back so we can retrea... uhh... advance backwards."
"Sod off. 'Es ourz now. You want 'im, yer gunna 'af ta fight da rest ov us!"
"Very well lads. Remove your bayonets and then reafix them for a glorious charge!"
"Commissar, sir you're not part of our unit, technically."
"Oh... good point. Well I'm leaving them. Good luck with the Orks!"

Yeah. Tri-pointing is taking a single guy hostage and everyone else has to stay to try and rescue him.

 Niiai wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.

It resulted in melee twisting itself into ridiculous knots as well. Picture a bunch of orcs charging down a unit of guardmen. Maybe the whole squad could have made it into close combat. But instead, said massive orcs would touch with just one model and fight with that one model, do zero kills, let the guardsmen swing back with all their attacks, and then consolidate, hence tri pointing and preventing said squad from falling back. It was a valid tactic because you didn't want to get shot up in the opponent's turn. But narratively this is literally what happened based on the above.

Big squad of orcs charge down ten guardsmen. Orcs go :" wahhhhhhhh !!!!"

Then, orcs inexplicably make the charge, but halt just outside of melee range. "Wahhhhh!!!!! screeches to a halt, and only one orc swings".

The rest of the orcs, stand there like idiots, buff out their chests and taunt the guardsmen "Just swing at us! give us your best shot!"

Guardsmen pile in, swing their attacks, and take out a few orcs.

Now, the orcs consolidate into battle and tri point the guardsmen. They then kill them in the opponent phase.


I mean, its a good game play... but narratively, it was so stupid? I mean, look at the above. Why would the orcs do something like that in an actual battle field? lol It would make zero sense.... lol

So just to be shure, your interpetation of the battle through an abstract game system is that it is an litteral represrntation as well? So all units stand around and move one at a time, waiting their turn? Sounds rather stiff.

I remember this computergame where the pendulum swinged in the other direction, for realisemn. In that game you have to manually fuel all your tanks and put bullits on your units because they could runn out of it. Realistic yes. Was it fun to play? For maiby. But having the stratagem 'ekstra genades' for one CP works well enough for me as an abstract interpetation instead of having to pre arm units with ekstra grenades beforehand. I want my games fun, not realistic.

Tripointing is neither realistic nor fun, so it fails at being an abstraction for ease of gameplay, and as a simulation of warfare.

Micromanaging your models so that they encircle one model isn't tactical or deep. Its just tedious, especially for your opponent who has to wait for you to finish moving everything into position just to lock down one unit.

Tactical would be positioning a squad behind an enemy squad, so that if they retreat they run into the squad you placed there.
That was something you could do in earlier editions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
Melee in 8th edition was utterly ridiculous. So my big Trygon that towers over all infantry, is unable to assault said infantry if they happen to be over 2" off the ground.

Yeah, that is some dumb crap right there.

Yeah, that's being changed in 9th ed. Monsters can now attack things on a higher elevation, iirc.
Fallback should really be a stratagem, especially when there's a lot of units that can just ignore the "penalty".

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.

It resulted in melee twisting itself into ridiculous knots as well. Picture a bunch of orcs charging down a unit of guardmen. Maybe the whole squad could have made it into close combat. But instead, said massive orcs would touch with just one model and fight with that one model, do zero kills, let the guardsmen swing back with all their attacks, and then consolidate, hence tri pointing and preventing said squad from falling back. It was a valid tactic because you didn't want to get shot up in the opponent's turn. But narratively this is literally what happened based on the above.

Big squad of orcs charge down ten guardsmen. Orcs go :" wahhhhhhhh !!!!"

Then, orcs inexplicably make the charge, but halt just outside of melee range. "Wahhhhh!!!!! screeches to a halt, and only one orc swings".

The rest of the orcs, stand there like idiots, buff out their chests and taunt the guardsmen "Just swing at us! give us your best shot!"

Guardsmen pile in, swing their attacks, and take out a few orcs.

Now, the orcs consolidate into battle and tri point the guardsmen. They then kill them in the opponent phase.


I mean, its a good game play... but narratively, it was so stupid? I mean, look at the above. Why would the orcs do something like that in an actual battle field? lol It would make zero sense.... lol

So just to be shure, your interpetation of the battle through an abstract game system is that it is an litteral represrntation as well? So all units stand around and move one at a time, waiting their turn? Sounds rather stiff.

I remember this computergame where the pendulum swinged in the other direction, for realisemn. In that game you have to manually fuel all your tanks and put bullits on your units because they could runn out of it. Realistic yes. Was it fun to play? For maiby. But having the stratagem 'ekstra genades' for one CP works well enough for me as an abstract interpetation instead of having to pre arm units with ekstra grenades beforehand. I want my games fun, not realistic.

Tripointing is neither realistic nor fun, so it fails at being an abstraction for ease of gameplay, and as a simulation of warfare.

Micromanaging your models so that they encircle one model isn't tactical or deep. Its just tedious, especially for your opponent who has to wait for you to finish moving everything into position just to lock down one unit.

Tactical would be positioning a squad behind an enemy squad, so that if they retreat they run into the squad you placed there.
That was something you could do in earlier editions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
Melee in 8th edition was utterly ridiculous. So my big Trygon that towers over all infantry, is unable to assault said infantry if they happen to be over 2" off the ground.

Yeah, that is some dumb crap right there.

Yeah, that's being changed in 9th ed. Monsters can now attack things on a higher elevation, iirc.
Fallback should really be a stratagem, especially when there's a lot of units that can just ignore the "penalty".

The issue with making it a strategum is that leads to the issue of turn one charge and GG.

Try keeping Kraken Genesteelers out of your units turn 1.
Heck marines new outriders 14m 6 advance and charge 7 puts them 27 inches across the bored turn 1 with 19 attacks.

I'm sure there is other examples I'm.missing but if they can make it into combat with 2 units the game is over, and don't give me that counter charge nonsence and that doesn't help armies without viable CC units. Also how many Counter chargers do you expect to be able to kill maxed Genstellers and also 12 T5 3+ Sv wounds in a single round of CC after heroic intervention? As killing in your turn will do nothing as your just going to be sucking up the turn 2 second wave rush.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And I feel the changes to terrain and flyers are good examples of giving the pendulum a push instead of yeeting it.

The fact that everyone seems to be saying that this edition will be vehicle heavy and infantry will be going back in the box suggests otherwise, though.

All claims made based on hyperbole and incomplete data.

I get there is a lot of apprehension right now but most of this threads has been people making rather big claims off of small bits of information.

I mean people were saying that melee was still dead before today's reveal. Who knows what people will claim tomorrow?

Ah yes playtesters who have played the game are just hyperboling and incomplete data

Says a lot about playtesting quality(or lack of it) if they do it on incompete data!

Or the "wait for full rules" crowd is again, like 100th time out of 100 cases in past 2 decades, AGAIN. As usual. That crowd never uses logical thinking and just are "it is fine it is fine it is fine" mantra sticking head into sand.

So they are wrong 100 time out of100

Can you quote any 9E playtester who said infantry will be back in the box for this edition? Just one.

Could you also quote someone posting in this thread to say everything is fine. Just you replied to ClockworkZion who has said more than once this is an incomplete picture, and explicitly not said that the game will be in any way perfect. You're trying to setup a ridiculous strawman by quoting him and implying he's making a different point. Almost like you have an agenda here.