Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
So what are we expecting to come next? Do we have any timeline of releases?

We've seen points changes from the one CA book, but do we know anything about what's in the other CA book? (Is that where the missions leaked from?)

Yes, that's where the strikeforce missions were leaked from.

I hope they finally get around to the new fw books.

Not to stoke unrealistic hopes, but something occurred to me. What's to stop GW from putting the Battle Sisters from the limited box in a starter set along with the Necron half of Indomitus? Maybe without the Overlord or something. Would be odd not to do anything with Sisters, what with them featuring so heavily next to Necrons and Marines.

That'd give us a regular starter set, account for the Sisters' presence in the marketing, reuse old assets so there's no additional cost, and it'd give me the starter set I always wanted. Pure win.

As for actual expectations, since any regular starter set could impact the latter half of the Indomitus pre-order period I expect we'll see new codices and the previewed models for Marines and Necrons to go on pre-order next so as to supplement the launch box release before we see anything that might distract from those two factions.

 oni wrote:
My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.

That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.

Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.

As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.

sieGermans wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is you can't move after you shoot going second so you can only claim objectives by assualting.
Not the best idea against some factions.
Also if your opponent is smart with positioning etc they can very much zone you off of objectives 3 throw away scout squads to screen objectives, then 3 12 inch no deepstrike squads in cover within range of the objectives basically screws you from taking those objectives without fly and you have to jump the scouts in your movement phase.

Lots of people are making the mistake of assuming that just because going 1st is advantaged, that doesn’t mean it’s auto-win. This is a 51/100 thing, not an 80/100.

This totally matters, and I think the discussion (in a Tactics or Tournament thread, mind) is super warranted—but let’s not exaggerate the effect this has.

The only advantage of going first is body blocking the 2nd player’s movement phase.
The advantage of going second is being able to selectively target units squatting on objectives.

The second doesn’t totally overcome the former, based on tournament results (which was surprising to me).

Is there any point continuing this discussion in the Rumors thread, though?

51/100? Advantage of going first has never been that small. Closer to 80/100 than 51/100

 oni wrote:
My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.

That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.

Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.

1000% that first sentence. I was really getting frustrated with the schisms in the competitive community. Discussing various units, armies, and tactics for Necrons felt like a waste of time sometimes as folks were addressing totally different metas layered over fundamentally different mission parameters.

tneva82 wrote:


51/100? Advantage of going first has never been that small. Closer to 80/100 than 51/100

It was in CA2020. But then we went back to where we were years ago with the 9th missions.

Looks like more Sector Imperialis terrain at 1.42 of the coming next week video?

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Looks like more Sector Imperialis terrain at 1.42 of the coming next week video?

Looks new alright and is in the style of the new pipes

Oh goody, more terrain.

HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?

gungo wrote:

 oni wrote:
My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.

That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.

Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.

As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.

Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.

I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.

I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.

I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.

Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.

All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.

Looks good hopefully it’s 3 levels tall... kinda tired of the small 1 level ruins and scatter terrain.

yukishiro1 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


51/100? Advantage of going first has never been that small. Closer to 80/100 than 51/100

It was in CA2020. But then we went back to where we were years ago with the 9th missions.

...This is CA 2020.

 Geifer wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
So what are we expecting to come next? Do we have any timeline of releases?

We've seen points changes from the one CA book, but do we know anything about what's in the other CA book? (Is that where the missions leaked from?)

Yes, that's where the strikeforce missions were leaked from.

I hope they finally get around to the new fw books.

Not to stoke unrealistic hopes, but something occurred to me. What's to stop GW from putting the Battle Sisters from the limited box in a starter set along with the Necron half of Indomitus? Maybe without the Overlord or something. Would be odd not to do anything with Sisters, what with them featuring so heavily next to Necrons and Marines.

That'd give us a regular starter set, account for the Sisters' presence in the marketing, reuse old assets so there's no additional cost, and it'd give me the starter set I always wanted. Pure win.

As for actual expectations, since any regular starter set could impact the latter half of the Indomitus pre-order period I expect we'll see new codices and the previewed models for Marines and Necrons to go on pre-order next so as to supplement the launch box release before we see anything that might distract from those two factions.

Would be really cool if they did this. I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if they didn’t have it as one of the smaller options like Know no fear etc

 Leth wrote:
I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.

I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.

I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.

Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.

All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.

This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.

Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Oh goody, more terrain.

HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?

Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.

jivardi wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.

I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.

I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.

Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.

All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.

This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.

Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.

That 'I think it will play out this way in actual games' is pretty much the perfect essence of theory-crafting.

Blast effectiveness is going to depend entirely on what people bring. If they bring frag missiles, then, no, whatever. If wyverns become common place, it matters a whole lot.

jivardi wrote:
This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.

Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.

No, you choose which side to deploy on before choosing secondaries.. Actually deploying the armies is several steps after choosing the secondary objectives.

jivardi wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I think that a lot of the benefit to going first or second is almost completely neutered by the fact that you don’t know if you are going first or second until after everything is deployed. If you deploy with the assumption of goin first, and then go second you are going to be out of position and take a lot of damage.

I think that unless someone is taking something like a drop pod army(which I see a lot of value in from the missions since they can come down turn 1 I think) most people will de deploying as if they were going second.

I can see a lot of melee armies wanting to go second. Lots of the mission objectives are much closer to the middle of the table than they used to be, so someone goin*first and rushing forward to claim the objectives? Great, free charges AND I get to sit on the objectives afterwards.

Obviously I have not played any games of 9th yet, but I can see melee being a bit stronger.

All of this however is 100% dependent on having a decent amount of terrain(which the game is balanced around IMO) and so playing on a empty board is obviously going to have a different effect.

This. I have watched quite a few battle reports for 9th edition and the person going first doesn't always win.

Plus, you choose your secondaries after deployment but before first turn. If I see my opponent has a boatload of MSU units I'm for sure choosing Attrition. A "combat sqaud" of 5 marines (or just 5 marines in general) is going to be easy kills for my Attrition secondary. 10 is going to be the magic number for Obsec units. For anything else go ham. I play Daemons, Sisters, DG and DA. None of my Obsec are going to be below 10 (well Daemons min size is 10 so don't have a choice) but I still plan to run 3x20 blobs of PB's. Blast hurts a little more but morale isn't as painful so I think it'll balance out during actual games, not theorycrafting sessions.

Well duh nobody's claiming 1st turn is automatic win. That "it's allright because going first doesn't always win" is just missing the point. If going first has 60% or even more winrate then that's the issue. It should not be 60%. It should not be 55%. It should be 50%

Also might want to check on actual rules before claiming about effects...Secondaries aren't chosen when you claim they are.. You don't even know your deployment zone let alone where people are deployed when you pick your secondaries.

Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?

 Platuan4th wrote:
Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?

GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?

GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.

The SM Chapter organization fluff has always been daft anyway. With the exception of specialists like Librarians and Techmarines any battle brother should be able and expected to fill any role. And don't even get me started on the only ten Company's of one hundred Marines nonsense

GoatboyBeta wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?

GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.

The SM Chapter organization fluff has always been daft anyway. With the exception of specialists like Librarians and Techmarines any battle brother should be able and expected to fill any role. And don't even get me started on the only ten Company's of one hundred Marines nonsense

Technically, it's up to 110 per Company (10 squads of 10, Commander, 2 LTs, Chaplain, Apothecary, Ancient, Company Champion, 1-3 Dreadnoughts).

 alextroy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Oh goody, more terrain.

HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?

Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.

Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Oh goody, more terrain.

HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?

Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.

Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.

I will say, technically 9th isn't even here yet. Just another week...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?

GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.

I’ll be giving mine 7th and/or 8th squad markings. My Dark Angels absolutely follow the Codex Astartes and are definitely not traitors or reforming to legion strength...

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?

GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.

I’ll be giving mine 7th and/or 8th squad markings. My Dark Angels absolutely follow the Codex Astartes and are definitely not traitors or reforming to legion strength...

Mine are going to 8th Company. The 4th already has Squads 7 and 8 done for the Lion.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Wait, do those Assault Interceptors really say 2nd Company 4th Squad? GW, do you even remember your own Company Organization?

GW hasn't cared about the lore for a good 20 years now.

They cared more before 20 years ago? Because I have gone back and read that old stuff, and man it does not look nearly as good without the rose goggles.

 Carnikang wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Oh goody, more terrain.

HEY GW, ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET US SEE THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?

Yes. 12 days before release, just like most releases.

Well yes, obviously, but how much longer until they announce their release so those 12 days can start. They said that the books would be out soon after 9th edition. What exactly is gw's definition of "soon"? This lack of information is aggravating.

I will say, technically 9th isn't even here yet. Just another week...

Which is equally frustraiting as they said we would have new FW books during 8th, I really hope we don't get screwed with books for the wrong edition. Then again maybe wouldn't be the worst if the points were inline with 8th as it might make some of the bugger models approach playable points.

ERJAK wrote:

gungo wrote:

 oni wrote:
My opinions on the new missions aside... I am thankful that we (e.g. Straight from the book players, ITC players, NOVA players, etc.) can finally be on the same page.

That said, I still have concerns that ITC and NOVA will do what they do and modify / house-rule things.

Lastly, I think it's important to keep in mind that if you do not care for the new mission design; that new, redesigned and refined missions will come. We saw this in 8th with Core to CA:17 to CA:18 to CA:19. If you cannot wait or simply dislike how the new missions pander to the tournament players; 8th edition missions are still perfectly playable.

As Brandt literally works for GW now and although he Technically stepped back from NOVA..
I have a feeling any house rules by nova/itc will just be beta test rules before it’s officially in chapter approved.
There is also the point Gw will be continually adding new missions and not every Tournament mission will make the tournament cut.
Odds are they will just settle on 6 missions to use for each round.

Sigmar has used the (frankly great) GHB missions since the first GHB dropped but every tournament still has house rules that add for flavor...and stop stupid gak like random realm of battle rules.

The balance in AoS has always been off.

The 9th ed General necron thread reminded me that there will be more primaris kits to come off the back of this. The now year old photo of the bikes also showed both a land speeder equivalent and possibly a mid sized tank.

People with space marine allergies take note and brace yourselves.