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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?

I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.

That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."

But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.

Source? I think I missed that. Did you mean the buff from the Reanimator?

Yep.

 Eldarain wrote:
Except Necrons already have odd targeted buffs instead of auras don't they? This crumbs without context approach is great at keeping us engaged but it's aggravating.

Only My Will be Done is a targeted buff. Everything else is an aura.

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?

I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.

That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.

Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.

sieGermans wrote:
Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."

But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.

Yet marines are looking to keep their auras...

We have 1 ability that is targeted. Doesn't mean every aura gets rewritten. Marine ones for one aren't. No reason to think cryptek aura is either.

Saying "there's targeted ability in 9th ed, all auras become targeted ability" makes as much sense as saying "there's targeted abilities in 8th, no auras exist in 8th". One can live without negating other. You can have both aura's AND targeted abilities. 8th ed shows both can exist in same game. Same way as the new fallback stratagem for 3 pointed doesn't mean existing rules that gives such ability in certain situations(like knights vs infantry) are going to be removed. Functionally both can exist. Nothing in stratagem says knight ability gets rewritten so making that assumption is pre-emptive

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And if playing on the minimum recommended board size, you’ve less distance to cross, and your opponent less space to withdraw into.

Wrong on first, correct on second. Distances are measured from center so gap between armies is same regardless of board size.

If it's a melee vs shooting army the first point would 'generally' be true too.

Whilst the deployment zones are same distance apart, having less space behind means things are going to be deployed closer to the enemy by the shooting army.

So whilst minimum gap remains the same, in reality, I would expect the melee army to still be starting slightly closer to the shooting army

sieGermans wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?

I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.

That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.

Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.

The mute function is useless due to how much moaning he does and how much interaction people have with that moaning, you end up reading it.

He didn't ask him to leave, he suggested he should take a break. I agree with that, however I think he thrives off the negativity, he's basically Tony Sopranos mother, and there's a few of them around here.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?

I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.

That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.

Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.

The mute function is useless due to how much moaning he does and how much interaction people have with that moaning, you end up reading it.

He didn't ask him to leave, he suggested he should take a break. I agree with that, however I think he thrives off the negativity, he's basically Tony Sopranos mother, and there's a few of them around here.

He did explicitly ask him to "do everyone a favour and leave". Slayer-Fan123's opinions are as valuable as anyone elses and he does bring up interesting points an relevant criticism within his posts.

hypnoticeris wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?

I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.

That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.

Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.

The mute function is useless due to how much moaning he does and how much interaction people have with that moaning, you end up reading it.

He didn't ask him to leave, he suggested he should take a break. I agree with that, however I think he thrives off the negativity, he's basically Tony Sopranos mother, and there's a few of them around here.

He did explicitly ask him to "do everyone a favour and leave". Slayer-Fan123's opinions are as valuable as anyone elses and he does bring up interesting points an relevant criticism within his posts.

The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.

Dragging it back on topic though, do we think this coming Sunday will announce the indominus box sets 2 week presumed preorder window? I have a feeling the stand alone rulebook won't be until the week after its release.

Dudeface wrote:

The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.

This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.

Dudeface wrote:

Dragging it back on topic though, do we think this coming Sunday will announce the indominus box sets 2 week presumed preorder window? I have a feeling the stand alone rulebook won't be until the week after its release.

We've seen 40k releases every 2 weeks since PA7, so I think they'll continue the pattern. Next week will be something like AoS Aelves on July 4th, followed by a two-week preorder for Indomitus on July 11th.

 xttz wrote:
This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.

End up as?

So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 xttz wrote:
This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.

End up as?

So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?

I have a feeling morale is one of the bigger things they've messed around with, so it could be.

Unfortunately, my guess for how the main morale mechanic works is...also not friendly to hordes. They've called it "Attrition" and are mentioning that it's better for Medium Size Units. My guess is that the penalty you take on your main turn morale check will be based on total casualties you've taken throughout the game (rather than casualties this turn) and you'll get a bonus to LD tests if you have 6+ and 11+ models in your unit - directly incentivizing taking things that get hit harder by blasts via a second mechanic.

Ultimately the game can become MSUhammer and I won't be that heartbroken, particularly if they give me functional transport rules (just allow models to disembark after moving at the end of the movement phase ffs, units in transports should be FASTER than units on foot!) as it will mean a hugely trivialized CP mechanic compared to now where the standard is a big shagnasty unit that gets 10 CPs pumped into it by battery detachments.

Maybe Fall Back requires a morale test? God that'd be real real nice. But I think "attempt to fall back" is ultimately just meaningless language based on the fact that the strat gives you multiple opportunities for models in the unit to get themselves killed.

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 xttz wrote:
This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.

End up as?

So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?

I have a feeling morale is one of the bigger things they've messed around with, so it could be.

Unfortunately, my guess for how the main morale mechanic works is...also not friendly to hordes. They've called it "Attrition" and are mentioning that it's better for Medium Size Units. My guess is that the penalty you take on your main turn morale check will be based on total casualties you've taken throughout the game (rather than casualties this turn) and you'll get a bonus to LD tests if you have 6+ and 11+ models in your unit - directly incentivizing taking things that get hit harder by blasts via a second mechanic.

Ultimately the game can become MSUhammer and I won't be that heartbroken, particularly if they give me functional transport rules (just allow models to disembark after moving at the end of the movement phase ffs, units in transports should be FASTER than units on foot!) as it will mean a hugely trivialized CP mechanic compared to now where the standard is a big shagnasty unit that gets 10 CPs pumped into it by battery detachments.

Maybe Fall Back requires a morale test? God that'd be real real nice. But I think "attempt to fall back" is ultimately just meaningless language based on the fact that the strat gives you multiple opportunities for models in the unit to get themselves killed.

There is a fundamental issue in morale that small units side stepped though. Losing 1 member from a 15 man squad shouldn't be anywhere near as debilitating to a morale check as losing 1 member from a 5 man squad, but that isn't what current morale reflects, within the current rules it is the opposite.

I do tend to agree that morale should be attentional across a full game. It needs to be more of a percentage of unit lost, as opposed to number within a unit lost though. To counter the downside to holistically small units (elite units) you give them very high leadership, and/or fearless.

A 5 man primaris squad should be more compromised by morale than a 10 man squad if both lose 2 members, but a 5 man terminator squad losing 2 members should be more resilient to the effects

That would still favour MSU though. It's hard for 5 strong squads to get enough to really worry without getting simply wiped out. Getting casualties on 2 turns without getting wiped out? Even slimmer. So unless 2nd morale test happens even without casualties hard to see morale worry 5 strong squads.

there's also issues with certain armies , which will keep their rules, just ignoring morale more or less for free.

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 xttz wrote:
This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.

End up as?

So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?

I have a feeling morale is one of the bigger things they've messed around with, so it could be.

Unfortunately, my guess for how the main morale mechanic works is...also not friendly to hordes. They've called it "Attrition" and are mentioning that it's better for Medium Size Units. My guess is that the penalty you take on your main turn morale check will be based on total casualties you've taken throughout the game (rather than casualties this turn) and you'll get a bonus to LD tests if you have 6+ and 11+ models in your unit - directly incentivizing taking things that get hit harder by blasts via a second mechanic.

Ultimately the game can become MSUhammer and I won't be that heartbroken, particularly if they give me functional transport rules (just allow models to disembark after moving at the end of the movement phase ffs, units in transports should be FASTER than units on foot!) as it will mean a hugely trivialized CP mechanic compared to now where the standard is a big shagnasty unit that gets 10 CPs pumped into it by battery detachments.

Maybe Fall Back requires a morale test? God that'd be real real nice. But I think "attempt to fall back" is ultimately just meaningless language based on the fact that the strat gives you multiple opportunities for models in the unit to get themselves killed.

Morale. I started looking at a few armies where there are LD reduction/increase abilities. For the most part, I don't think they have been utilized much in 8th. I do think these will play a much bigger role in 9th and these abilities are scattered throughout the books I've been looking at.

tneva82 wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."

But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.

Yet marines are looking to keep their auras...

We have 1 ability that is targeted. Doesn't mean every aura gets rewritten. Marine ones for one aren't. No reason to think cryptek aura is either.

Saying "there's targeted ability in 9th ed, all auras become targeted ability" makes as much sense as saying "there's targeted abilities in 8th, no auras exist in 8th". One can live without negating other. You can have both aura's AND targeted abilities. 8th ed shows both can exist in same game. Same way as the new fallback stratagem for 3 pointed doesn't mean existing rules that gives such ability in certain situations(like knights vs infantry) are going to be removed. Functionally both can exist. Nothing in stratagem says knight ability gets rewritten so making that assumption is pre-emptive

Yep.

Dudeface wrote:
The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.

If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.

Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.

 xttz wrote:
This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.

In all honesty, this place is already much more toxic than tg, Over there you just need to skim over and filter out a few trolls, here everything is an endlessness pit of passive aggressiveness and grudges where even the productive conversations are often laced with seething hostility. This isn’t unique to here though, the entire design of message board culture encourages it.

I wouldn't mind if 9th just straight up killed horde style armies. Nothing about them I personally like. From their poor price per point to there not being much of a way to make them good while not making them too good.

It was a poor plan to introduce an army concept of take like 150 weak infantry dudes vs 30 elite infantry dudes in a dice game. What we ended up with over the years is needing to make elite infantry tougher which lead to weapons needing more shots to kill the tougher elite infantry which inevitably meant those same guns kill weak infantry even more.

I think they have it about right with Guard with smallish weak units that cap objectives and protect the big guns while being a small threat to other weak units. But Tyranids and Orks goofed it. People want massive blobs of guants or boyz to steamroll and it just borks the game up if they can.

So I would be happy if GW redefined what a horde army was. Like
little Jimmy shouldn't have to figure out how to get $300 worth of guants for his horde tyranids.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And yet here you are, still lapping it up.

We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.

NO idea, huh? Like I said, we have 20+ years of data proving GW forgets even basic grammar for writing rules. Not to mention managing to screw each edition 4th onwards middle of the edition or even early on.

You SHOULD be expecting the worst out of them. You have no reason NOT to.

You do understand that the people who worked.on 8th and 9th aren't the same people that worked on editions 20 years ago right? I mean the only long-standing staff member we know of who is working on 40k is Cruddace and I haven't seen hide nor hair from him this entire reveal, it's all been Stu Black.

You're taking years of data from other people and then using it to point fingers at different people all because the same company signs their checks.

And I get that I tend to have too much faith in humanity, but this feels rather cynical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sieGermans wrote:
Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."

But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.

Yeah, targetted auras could really be a thing in the new edition beyond just the Necrons and that'd have a major impact on the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?

I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.

That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.

Don't get me wrong, I never intended to quash debate or say we shouldn't try to understand the rules with what little we know. Heck, you can even see me talk about how I think some of the changes will soften single-unit alpha strikes in favor of more coordinated mid to late game melee pushes.

I just feel the wailing and gnashing of teeth about everything being useless, broken or otherwise dead everytime GW shows us anything to kill conversation because it always circles around to a circle jerk of how GW is ruining 40k again.

Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).

tneva82 wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."

But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.

Yet marines are looking to keep their auras...

We have 1 ability that is targeted. Doesn't mean every aura gets rewritten. Marine ones for one aren't. No reason to think cryptek aura is either.

Saying "there's targeted ability in 9th ed, all auras become targeted ability" makes as much sense as saying "there's targeted abilities in 8th, no auras exist in 8th". One can live without negating other. You can have both aura's AND targeted abilities. 8th ed shows both can exist in same game. Same way as the new fallback stratagem for 3 pointed doesn't mean existing rules that gives such ability in certain situations(like knights vs infantry) are going to be removed. Functionally both can exist. Nothing in stratagem says knight ability gets rewritten so making that assumption is pre-emptive

I'd argue that the Reanimator has a "targeted aura" due to the targetted unit needing to stay in range to get the bonus.

I could see GW implimenting more of these sorts of buffs, and even retroactively changing others via day 1 errata as it means castling becomes less favored instead of a sort of "power pair" playstyle.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I wouldn't mind if 9th just straight up killed horde style armies. Nothing about them I personally like. From their poor price per point to there not being much of a way to make them good while not making them too good.

It was a poor plan to introduce an army concept of take like 150 weak infantry dudes vs 30 elite infantry dudes in a dice game. What we ended up with over the years is needing to make elite infantry tougher which lead to weapons needing more shots to kill the tougher elite infantry which inevitably meant those same guns kill weak infantry even more.

I think they have it about right with Guard with smallish weak units that cap objectives and protect the big guns while being a small threat to other weak units. But Tyranids and Orks goofed it. People want massive blobs of guants or boyz to steamroll and it just borks the game up if they can.

So I would be happy if GW redefined what a horde army was. Like
little Jimmy shouldn't have to figure out how to get $300 worth of guants for his horde tyranids.

That is just your opinion my friend. Doesn't mean much. Here let me try: I like playing hordes (though 150 is a limit for me, over that it becomes tedious), and I feel my opponents like playing against them (again, up to 150). I play hordes rather fast, I sometimes win, and I sometimes lose. Lots of gaunts is thematic.
I don't mind playing against knights (they feel weak and I like a challenge, but aside from that it's cool facing giant robots from time to time). Yep, my opinion, and no one gives a feth hah hah.

But some will shout their opinion for whatever reason (though no one cares really) and write "GW should not have put allowed them in regular games), fuelled by angry nerdrage.

The truth is hordes, elites, knights (and such), all types of armies bring diversity to the game, at the cost of balance yes. It is the price of having diversity.

changemod wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.

If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.

Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.

The team used to be a lot smaller back from 2nd to 3rd, and even up through 5th. I'd argue that the popularity.of 5th brought in a fair bit of new blood, but the rules team was still largely the old guard who mainly work on AoS (though Ward left years ago now). Cruddace is the only one from the Old Guard still running around and he's been rather proactive in trying to gather player feedback and other data at large events, though I haven't seen GW mention him for anything in quite a while, so maybe he quietly stepped down or left?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).

It's honestly something I'd like to see myaelf. Like, we can keep auras (KFF is a good example of an aura worth keeping) but I feel like anything that gives buffs to die rolls of any kind should be a targeted aura. Be it re-rolls, +/-1 rolls, or whatever.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.

If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.

Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.

The team used to be a lot smaller back from 2nd to 3rd, and even up through 5th. I'd argue that the popularity.of 5th brought in a fair bit of new blood, but the rules team was still largely the old guard who mainly work on AoS (though Ward left years ago now). Cruddace is the only one from the Old Guard still running around and he's been rather proactive in trying to gather player feedback and other data at large events, though I haven't seen GW mention him for anything in quite a while, so maybe he quietly stepped down or left?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).

It's honestly something I'd like to see myaelf. Like, we can keep auras (KFF is a good example of an aura worth keeping) but I feel like anything that gives buffs to die rolls of any kind should be a targeted aura. Be it re-rolls, +/-1 rolls, or whatever.

Cruddace was at LVO as head of the rules teams iirc

Not Online!!! wrote:
there's also issues with certain armies , which will keep their rules, just ignoring morale more or less for free.

With GW wanting to make morale more important we could be seeing a rework on how that'll work as well.

I say "could" because I honestly don't expect it. They kind of dropped the ball in 8h and haven't found a good way to represent morale on the tabletop, but they can always prove me wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.

If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.

Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.

The team used to be a lot smaller back from 2nd to 3rd, and even up through 5th. I'd argue that the popularity.of 5th brought in a fair bit of new blood, but the rules team was still largely the old guard who mainly work on AoS (though Ward left years ago now). Cruddace is the only one from the Old Guard still running around and he's been rather proactive in trying to gather player feedback and other data at large events, though I haven't seen GW mention him for anything in quite a while, so maybe he quietly stepped down or left?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).

It's honestly something I'd like to see myaelf. Like, we can keep auras (KFF is a good example of an aura worth keeping) but I feel like anything that gives buffs to die rolls of any kind should be a targeted aura. Be it re-rolls, +/-1 rolls, or whatever.

Cruddace was at LVO as head of the rules teams iirc

Right, but he hasn't been involved in any of the marketing for 9th and Stu Black has been running around as the head of the rules studio manager, so I wonder if they handed 9th over to Stu and Cruddace has stepped down from running 40k, or what. He's basically the last of the old guard after all.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
there's also issues with certain armies , which will keep their rules, just ignoring morale more or less for free.

With GW wanting to make morale more important we could be seeing a rework on how that'll work as well.

I say "could" because I honestly don't expect it. They kind of dropped the ball in 8h and haven't found a good way to represent morale on the tabletop, but they can always prove me wrong.

Loyalists will either be immune or practically immune to any morale mechanics. They always have been. Gw just can't stand to see the "heroes" break and run.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
there's also issues with certain armies , which will keep their rules, just ignoring morale more or less for free.

With GW wanting to make morale more important we could be seeing a rework on how that'll work as well.

I say "could" because I honestly don't expect it. They kind of dropped the ball in 8h and haven't found a good way to represent morale on the tabletop, but they can always prove me wrong.

Loyalists will either be immune or practically immune to any morale mechanics. They always have been. Gw just can't stand to see the "heroes" break and run.

Yeah, this is the big problem with morale in 40k. When marines functionally ignore something, it becomes kind of a forgotten mechanic because marines are 80% of the armies in the game seemingly.

But Morale could be a good thing for the game - if GW did with it what it seems like is the default reason for Morale to exist in most wargames: As a way to reduce the effectiveness of a unit without destroying it outright.

That's typically what morale does - allow yout o interact with an enemy without totally killing them, reducing the lethality of the game overall. Morale is there so that a unit can either run away, or get suppressed, or hide for a turn and then come back in a later turn to affect the game. Morale in 8th is just a cherry on top of the model-blender that is turn 1 and 2.

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?

I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.

That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.

Responding to trolls and know-it-alls = pointless

Today on Warhammer 40,000 Daily they will be covering Psychic Awakening: Pariah:

Today's #New40K show takes a first look inside the cover of Psychic Awakening: Pariah.