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.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/27 07:55:28
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
How odd that the poll is now different to the thread title...
Crispy78 wrote: Almost certainly. My son's just started a Necron army, so we're at least 50% covered by the starter box - I think Necrons being in it is a given at this point. I'm hoping it's Sisters against Necrons. I'll jump at that. SMs are less appealing to me, if my youngest son doesn't fancy them I'll consider selling them on....
I'll probably still buy it - not sure my son would forgive me if I don't...
But, if the pictures currently circulating are the back-of-the-box artwork showing the contents (which is certainly what they look like!), well I'm pretty disappointed. Having never been a collector of Space Marines - from the outside looking in, that's a pretty bloody nondescript generic collection of marines. Aside from the sword-character and the sword-and-shield marines, it could all be models I've been playing against for years. Nothing in there makes me say Wow.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
Why would softback annoy people? I’d much prefer all the books (rulebook, codex, CA, PA etc) were softback. Hardback just adds weight, bulk and cost with no upside AKAIK.
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
Why would softback annoy people? I’d much prefer all the books (rulebook, codex, CA, PA etc) were softback. Hardback just adds weight, bulk and cost with no upside AKAIK.
Because in typical GW fashion you'll only get the soft back in the start collecting the hard back will only be available stand alone and no-one will get the A5 sized book with just the rules in it they actually want.
Nope. stopped giving GW my money years ago. the last GW item of any kind i bought new was the titanicus reaver titan when they released it so i could have one for epic scale play.
It's not like i need anything else between my DIY chapter, my dark angels, my admechwith a smattering of various items like superheavies and imperial assassins for 28mm play, then there is all my epic stuff and my BFG fleets. i pretty well have the 40K side of things covered with minis.
My enthusiasm for 9th is about as high as it was for 6th.....so not there. there are a few aeronautica models i might get for epic play but thats about all i would be interested in.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
There is a massive difference between playing 9th and buying the starter set which is what the poll actually asks.
ccs wrote: Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.
hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one
Yiu know it qill be the full A4 size one though if GW wanted to annoy people they could make it a soft back.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
Why would softback annoy people? I’d much prefer all the books (rulebook, codex, CA, PA etc) were softback. Hardback just adds weight, bulk and cost with no upside AKAIK.
Because in typical GW fashion you'll only get the soft back in the start collecting the hard back will only be available stand alone and no-one will get the A5 sized book with just the rules in it they actually want.
I suspect the App is GW planned table side reference as your 9th edition codex cones with a probably one time use code to add it to your app.
they said, if you buy a paper codex, you get access to the units in the app
so don't expect to have a full digital codex in the app or get one for free if you buy the paper one. You will just get the datasheets of the units in the app and get access to them for free that you already paid for
(because GW still wants to sell books and gives you the gift of not paying twice)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
It really depends on how badly GW feth up the 9th rules.
Beyond that I have a Necron army, so more Necrons is good, and I've been looking into getting a small Primaris army that isn't Ultramarines, and these more gothic-y Primaris Marines are far more interesting than all the Tacti-Cool stuff we've received so far.
Plus, unlike seemingly everyone at Dakka, I really like the new bikes. Go figure!
auticus wrote: 3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
These three things won't matter as long as you can still shoot an entire unit because the top of a banner pole or sword is sticking out from behind a piece of terrain.
Ishagu wrote: From what I've seen it looks like the best starter set in the history of 40k.
It doesn't come with a stand up cardboard Ork Dreadnought, so that means it can't be the best starter in the history of 40K.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/27 11:52:33
ValentineGames wrote: This exact same question has been asked for every single new edition release.
And I guarantee most people who vote no... Are massive liars who will buy into the game just like they always have...
Citation needed please
To be fair
There's no shortage of people who just lurk on 40k pages to complain about every new release, claim they never played since the end of 3rd... but that's not what people do when they're done with a game, y'know.
I mean, of the "That guys" I know in real life a lot of them are That "If everyone would only play the superior game that I want to play instead of this STOOPID game that everyone ELSE wants to play it'd be so much better and balanced and more gooder..."
Typically, if you start up a new game that's not played in the area (or not publicized at least) 1-2 of those flavor of That Guy's will show up, really hyped that FINALLY there's a group to play their superior, highly balanced, thousand times folded nippon steel game.... and they last for approximately "until the first time they lose" before picking a new game and trying to poach your playgroup to switch to that.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Despite not playing Marines or Necrons I'll be buying it. Once I've sold the models I should pretty much break even and get the rule book for free. Although that being said I am rather keen on Chaosifying that fella with the veil Assuming of course the leaks are correct and that is what we're getting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/27 13:06:22
I've been playing a while, my first model was a lead marine and my first White Dwarf was bound with staples
H.B.M.C. wrote: It really depends on how badly GW feth up the 9th rules.
...
auticus wrote: 3) Remove true line of sight from the game.
4) Add cover rules that matter. The ability to take out my entire squad because you can see one guy's forearm is a hard no for me.
5) Add rules to make terrain significantly impact battles.
These three things won't matter as long as you can still shoot an entire unit because the top of a banner pole or sword is sticking out from behind a piece of terrain.
I never understood why true line o sight doesn't imply exactly that... meaning, if one unit can target the top of a banner pole of another unit, then this is what can be targeted and shot at.
The abstractions including dynamic battlefields shooting through units, and 360degree LoS and jet aircraft hit by flamers, all of this decidely untrue LoS seems to me to be more of a problem.
So, target a banner pole. Hit a banner pole.
This is also how we fix the baneblade behind the rock problem, in both directions.
If one can target the front track, then one can hit the front track. Roll to hit. If a hit, roll on a damage table (as in the old days) and if one were to roll "immobilized" or "track" then count that as a hit. The point here is that realism affords a means to negotiate interactions according to relatively uncontroversial expectations.
Or, divide the tank in half, roll a d6. If result is on the targeted side of the tank, divide that half into halves, and roll again. Do this until an area is isolated corresponding with the targeted area. If one can see 25% of the side of the tank or less, do this 3 times. If the shooting player manages to roll as necessary, then declare a hit. Else the rock gets a chunk taken out of itI don't expect that the new edition will do this, exactly, but I am hoping that prior learned and everyday expectations are confirmed on the tabletop, with none so directly contradicted as the dumpster fire that was 8th ed imho.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/28 19:48:39
BaconCatBug wrote: And then we get arguments over whether I can see the scalp of your Captain and should get to headshot him. or go back to the days of Rhino Sniping.
Please see common sense solutions in the post above.
No?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for this poll, it is interesting that the proportion of yeay v nay has remained pretty constant.
Now, we have 400 votes, a fairly large sample.
I hope to run another poll after the release of the new box, to see how things actually turn out after we see what's coming.
My starting position is that it is GW's interest to lose, because right now, I am interested.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/28 19:51:26
BaconCatBug wrote: Or, just abstract it so when I hit a model, I wound a model. Needless complexity is not depth.
How does this make sense, at all? What needless complexity?
rolling on tables to randomly get results that might line up with the subjective parts of non standard models.
What you are suggesting is incredibly complex and full of opportunities for human error and subjectivity.
KISS. I shot your model. it took damage.
Why use terrain with interactions at all then?
With your approach, the error is all assumed and front loaded into a cardgame.
Why did I spend 20 years painting models and building realistic terrian if none of it matters and the immersion is actively shattered by the presumtpion that players are too stupid to track terrain interactions?
BaconCatBug wrote: Or, just abstract it so when I hit a model, I wound a model. Needless complexity is not depth.
How does this make sense, at all? What needless complexity?
rolling on tables to randomly get results that might line up with the subjective parts of non standard models.
What you are suggesting is incredibly complex and full of opportunities for human error and subjectivity.
KISS. I shot your model. it took damage.
Why use terrain with interactions at all then?
With your approach, the error is all assumed and front loaded into a cardgame.
Why did I spend 20 years painting models and building realistic terrian if none of it matters and the immersion is actively shattered by the presumtpion that players are too stupid to track terrain interactions?
I see 25% of your model.
Therefore, I need to hit, wound, save, and then two more rolls to see if I actually hit.
What if I only see the head of your Captain? The head is clearly above a wall, but the rest of the body is obscured. Do I need to roll those two extra dice to see if I "hit" the body and therefore really missed? What if I succeed on those and hit the head? Do I get extra damage, since it's definitely a headshot?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
BaconCatBug wrote: Or, just abstract it so when I hit a model, I wound a model. Needless complexity is not depth.
How does this make sense, at all? What needless complexity?
rolling on tables to randomly get results that might line up with the subjective parts of non standard models.
What you are suggesting is incredibly complex and full of opportunities for human error and subjectivity.
KISS. I shot your model. it took damage.
Why use terrain with interactions at all then?
With your approach, the error is all assumed and front loaded into a cardgame.
Why did I spend 20 years painting models and building realistic terrian if none of it matters and the immersion is actively shattered by the presumtpion that players are too stupid to track terrain interactions?
I see 25% of your model.
Therefore, I need to hit, wound, save, and then two more rolls to see if I actually hit.
What if I only see the head of your Captain? The head is clearly above a wall, but the rest of the body is obscured. Do I need to roll those two extra dice to see if I "hit" the body and therefore really missed? What if I succeed on those and hit the head? Do I get extra damage, since it's definitely a headshot?
Easy enough and can be answered intuitively and by taken advantage of everyday experience that we all share in common.
One way to represent interactions involves declared or assumed interactions, such as taking cover when in and near terrain.
Another way is to use a ready approximation, as we always had - if 25% or more is visible, then targetting is possible.
Here, the standard approach might be like using those d6s in the tank example, above.
Some models may be able to ignore these modifiers, like snipers for instance, thereby affording options for some units to distinguish themselves from others in realistic ways by way of the interaction.
Any of this is preferrable to jettisoning the realism that makes the time spent in painting and modeling tabletops so immersive.
JNAProductions wrote: So, instead of gaining cover, they're immune to 75% of all damage?
And what about doing extra damage with headshots? That's intuitive.
Maybe yes. Why not. Some units may get a critical shot ability, maybe with a more difficult roll, or requiring two rolls to execute.
One for the hit, one for the crit.
That in mind, this is actually another way to manage terain and cover interactions with targeting and hitting.
About half in cover, roll to hit 2x. 25%, roll to hit 3x. This represents the diffciulty of the shot, and reflects the relative skills of shooters.
Anyways, my point is that there a a lot of ways to do this.
GW has approached these sorts of dynamics in different ways through the editions. I had been hoping with this edition that they would simply print edits of the different approaches (that they already own) into a single universal book from which groups can simply select. So, want more realistic movement and cover interactions, use those levels of detail from the move and terrain sections. Want CP farming or no CPs at all, pick and choose the rules that you want to use. The upshot here is that we all have the same books setting out the same options, and are able to consult the same books, much easier than house ruling and talking things through with new people all the time.
As it is, the new edition does seem to want to afford different degrees of realism, and I am optimistic...
JNAProductions wrote: Ah, but if you're firing a Melta, shouldn't it ignore cover of anything less than the hull of a starship? It'll blow right through ordinary walls.
A Lascannon would do the same.
What cover works against Bolters? More than Meltas or Lascannons, but not everything-how do you determine what cover can be blown through by what?
A certain level of abstraction is NEEDED to make the game function.
Sure. We can draw lines with line of sight, which had been the way that things were done.
But, even here, we may open up to another sort of interactions if we want for these to play a role. Terrain might have a pen value and a weapon may penetrate and shoot through with loss of strength equal to pen value of intervening terrain, and with a hit modifier (maybe 2 rolls to hit being necessary, for instance) unless the shooter has a targeter of a special sort (some units might be distinguished in this way from others) or has an ability of a certain sort (like sniper, etc).
Anyways, I am not saying that this is what must be done, but it can be done. GW could offer rules representing these sorts of interatctions at different levels of realism in different ways (terrain, cover, movement, etc) and with some necessitated by the inclusion of certain units (like Knights might require certain sorts of interactions to represent them on the tabletop that are unnecessary with smaller units). And, people can choose to use them in their games or not. And besides all fo this, there are house rules just as there are now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/28 20:42:23
stonehorse wrote: I strongly doubt that GW care about making a good game anymore. They know that they have enough rabid fans who will lap up anything with a GW logo slapped on it. So there is no incentive for them to try and produce a good well balanced game.
I'd love to be wrong, and if I were I'd happily eat my hat as the expression goes. But after playing GW games for over 3 decades, I have come to used to their crap.
If the box is reasonably priced that may tempt me to pick one up to use the models in OPR Grimdark Future.
I am not sure I agree. It seems like Geedubs is trying to expand their fanbase (more diversity, kids novels, Conquest...) and make Warhammer a bit more mainstream rather than rely on the "rabid fanbase". I'd like to think that 7th and the start of AOS taught them they can't just do what they like and expect people to be ok with it. And while the effectiveness of the FAQs is debatable, it does seem like they are doing more than in previous editions to fix problems. The fact that close combat and cover, two things people have complained a lot about this edition, are quite prominent in what we have seen of 9th edition so far gives me a bit of optimism.
....I mean, in that close combat looks to be worse, if anything, from the changes....by quite a lot.
Vehicles get to shoot while in melee, and weapons that get random numbers of shots (which probably includes flamers) get max shots against "horde" units, whatever that turns out to mean.
Neither of those things particularly spell to me "melee will be improved". Also, since we know that rules will not be invalidated, it seems unlikely to me that the things that really make melee suck, like Overwatch, random charge distance, or having to charge 9" out of deep strike to do anything at all as a deep striking melee unit, will be changing. All those bad things are on unit datasheets.
the only thing that would help melee out from the currently previewed rules is a massively reworked, highly powerful cover system. I suppose they could also do something like allow you to disembark from a transport after it moves, or give you a new way to avoid overwatch somehow as a melee unit, or make it less of a nightmare to try and make melee attacks against a unit in cover or at a higher elevation, but that's definitely not what they previewed.
There was mention that they may be making a change to Overwatch. I suspect units who don't move or don't shoot, or both will get to do overwatch and those who do won't. Cover is the other thing- they've hyped that change more than any other.
BTW, how was overwatch doing you so much harm? For normal units, they only hit on 6's, and many of those hits won't wound, and even of the ones that do, fewer still will get through your armour. Just curious about your nightmare overwatch scenario, because it seemed like a speedbump more than anything else to me.
JNAProductions wrote: Ah, but if you're firing a Melta, shouldn't it ignore cover of anything less than the hull of a starship? It'll blow right through ordinary walls.
A Lascannon would do the same.
What cover works against Bolters? More than Meltas or Lascannons, but not everything-how do you determine what cover can be blown through by what?
A certain level of abstraction is NEEDED to make the game function.
Sure. We can draw lines with line of sight, which had been the way that things were done.
LBut, even here, we may open up to another sort of interactions if we want for these to play a role. Terrain might have a pen value and a weapon may penetrate and shoot through with loss of strength equal to pen value of intervening terrain, and with a hit modifier (maybe 2 rolls to hot being necessary, for instance) unless the shooter has a targeter of a special sort (some units might be distinguished in this way from others) or has an ability of a certain sort (like sniper, etc).
That sounds like a gakton of bloat.
Weren't people excited that 8th was gonna simplify things?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.
I think that the more the game reflects everyday expectations then the simpler it really is, even though it might appear more complex when printed on a paper in formal terms. the game will play more smoothly in practice because common expectations are confirmed in the flow of the approximated interactions.
For instance the interactions between grots and landraiders were supposed to be simpler, but they were not so easy to actually play according to on the table because they ran contrary to expectations, thereby not taking advantage of common expectations of real world interactions and so making the game actually more difficult to play for all its simplicity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/28 20:50:45
I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.
I think that the more the game reflects everyday expectations then the simpler it really is, even though it might appear more complex when printed on a paper in formal terms. the game will play more smoothly in practice because common expectations are confirmed in the flow of the approximated interactions.
Do I see 25% or 30% of the model?
I see 30%-I don't have a d10, how do I figure out what to roll to determine if I actually hit?
How do I determine how much extra damage I do with a headshot against your model?
What if the model doesn't have a helmet-clearly, I should do even more damage then!
What if I don't have professional terrain, and I'm literally using books and soda cans because I'm poor and new to the hobby?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
