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.

Simple question:
Are you more or less excited for the release of 9th given the slow drip of details?

More excited (or at least not less exctied); the details indicate promise that GW is making the right kinds of changes in the right ways.

Less excited (or growing anxious with suspicion that GW is going to screw things up); the details indicate that 9th will be flawed, perhaps in avoidable ways.

In discussion, please indicate why you voted one way or the other.

More excited so far. They seem to be fixing a lot of the issues I had with the 8th edition like Soup, CP, and terrain.

I am also hoping the missions in the book become the standard everywhere, and we don't have the divide with the ITC like we do now. I'm guessing Mike Brandts new role may have something to do with that?

Overall, I'm pretty optimistic and becoming more so as time goes on. Seems like GW is tightening up the stuff and I like what I've seen so far.

I'm excited. TBH most of the people whom are negitive are the ones whom have been more or less relentlessly negative. and thus where always going to be inclined to see the worst possiablt outcome. so far the changes we've seen are good and indicate that GW at least miay be trying to reduce the (tabletop) bloat.

What are they doing with soup? Better or worse for soup armies?

Neutral. 8th was a series of massive steps forward and yet the game fell into a lot of the same pit falls. Until 9th is seen on full there is no reason to think it will be any different.

Generally more exited, but I'm really waiting on how terrain is going to shape up.

8th is a horrible mess that I've had an immense amount of fun playing.

GW is a company that fixes small problems by making wide-sweeping changes, and I'm worried that the stupid fun of 8th is just going to be stupid in the end.

Eh, the rules are more or less irrelevant to me as they've driven me away with the pricing schemes for everything new and upcoming.

9th could be the best wargame ever written...and I won't pay $55 for five Howling Banshees. While I have two large armies, I simply am not following GW forward.

Hyped! Tons of new necron models, primaris deathwing and ravenwing, and a CP rework, whats not to like.

mrFickle wrote:
What are they doing with soup? Better or worse for soup armies?

In essence, you get a starting amount of CP and detachments cost CP now. So there is a cost to souping. There is also a max number of detachments depending on the points level.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/taking-command-of-your-pointsgw-homepage-post-1/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/

 Insectum7 wrote:
Generally more exited, but I'm really waiting on how terrain is going to shape up.

Same, many of the rules seem changes seem good but the big intrinsic interaction that is going to change will revolve around the changes to terrain and cover. That is what's going to set the tone for how much movement strategy is going to play in.

100% in the "At least not less excited" category. Probably because after 30 years of edition changes for WHFB/40k/D&D/FoW/etc etc etc I'm just jaded.
And I have plenty of games (and editions of them) to play & people to play them with if the new edition isn't to my liking.

So if they create the next best thing? Great!
If they feth it all up? Eh, that's their problem, not mine.

I voted "less" at the moment, but subject to change depending on what we see in the near future. While I'm happy that certain rules are getting looked at, there are others that are raising eyebrows for me. I'm an ork player, and it's hard to not think that the sky is falling when it looks like GW are stacking the deck against us poor greenskins with individual models getting more expensive, having CP levels gutted (comparative to now, where I need as much CP as physically possible on turns one and two), etc. And when I've just assembled and painted 90 Ork boys and 40 gretchin that may be next to useless depending on where the rules go.

But I'm hoping that when it actually drops I'm pleasantly surprised by all of the wonderful rules and how balanced and great the core rules are, and it is just me over-worrying.

I am excited. I've played since Rogue Trader and enjoy the game and genre. I did not like 6th and 7th, but have enjoyed 8th. 9th appears to be improving upon 8th. To me, it is similar to how 2nd edition improved upon Rogue Trader and how 4th edition improved upon 3rd.

It will take some getting used to a different tabletop size, as I anticipate my area will mirror ITC. However, I played on 8x4 and had to adjust when it went to 6x4. If armies are a bit smaller and the game does not appear to be a scrum in the middle of the table, I'll be fine with the size difference.

I like a lot of what I'm seeing in regards to the core rules. There seems to be a lot of neat stuff in the pipeline.

My issues increasingly are with the army books themselves, primarily the increasingly intense levels of lethality, in addition to the fact that seemingly half the material in each codex is going to be invalid and likely require an extensive Update/Errata/FAQ document (we already know all points values are changing, we don't know what changes may impact army rules or unit abilities that may require re-writes/updates, etc) and they probably won't get around to updating all the armies quick enough to avoid having to pile at least one if not two future Chapter Approved's on top of that, with of course the same applying to Psychic Awakening too.

Mostly positive till today.

I'm very dubious on the merits of reducing the size of the play space by a quarter.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I like a lot of what I'm seeing in regards to the core rules. There seems to be a lot of neat stuff in the pipeline.

My issues increasingly are with the army books themselves, primarily the increasingly intense levels of lethality, in addition to the fact that seemingly half the material in each codex is going to be invalid and likely require an extensive Update/Errata/FAQ document (we already know all points values are changing, we don't know what changes may impact army rules or unit abilities that may require re-writes/updates, etc) and they probably won't get around to updating all the armies quick enough to avoid having to pile at least one if not two future Chapter Approved's on top of that, with of course the same applying to Psychic Awakening too.

I'm thinking this is part of why GW is going in so deep on the app. The fact that they are making the digital codex's free with a hardcover means you should get all of those updates automatically.

The AoS app is pretty handy for all that and you can get stats and points for units without the book. I'm curious if GW is going to shift to that model as well.

I'm really stoked about Crusade. Love that there are missions for games of every size. I want to hear more about the app. Not 100% convinced that the detachment caps and changes work for all factions, but they certainly could have been worse.

Table changes are only relevant at tournaments or stores; some will adopt the minimum sizes, others will likely choose not to; I tend to play with friends at my place or theirs, so our table sizes aren't changing.

I think orks will be okay, but I know little about the army. What makes me think they'll be okay is that you'll probably get 12 CP to start + 1 per turn in a Strike Force sized game (2k points) because you'll probably be able to fit all of your units into a single brigade or battalion. Plus cover is getting a redo and modifiers are capped at +1/-1. Points increase could effect the horde, it's true. Blast weapons could be an issue for large mobs.

I was initially furious with the announcement of a new edition, but what has leaked so far has turned me around a bit and I'm actually looking forward to it now.

Less, or growing increasingly anxious that GW will screw things up

With GW decideing to reveal 'Cut em down' stratagem i belive it gives a sneak peek at exactly how little they are gonna do to fix melee, and I personally belive the next 3 years+ are gonna be a gunline edition 8.1, with elite melee constantly playing catchup game thinking 2 turns ahead with pile in gimmicks to have a sliver of a chance.

Point reduction for new edition so they can Cancer Approve units with useless points drop is not great either, nstead of fixing their fundamental issues in the rules. (Im looking at you 5++ invul bloodthirster.)

I'd be so happy to be wrong.

 Asmodai wrote:
Mostly positive till today.

I'm very dubious on the merits of reducing the size of the play space by a quarter.

Indeed, due to this, we have this poll.

Results have shifted from early and heavily favorable to now almost 50/50...

I haven't seen any rules that would give big buffs to my army, so I wouldn't call myself exited. On the other hand I don't think 9th is going to be a bad edition, at least for me. They would really have to butcher the PA books and the stratagem system for that to happen, or mess up points real bad.

While they may have pointed to fixes to 8th that are literally nothing more than going back to a version of better rules in previous editions (that i see as a positive), the idea of adding more turn phases, a more complex scoring system and a reduced play area (rather for marketing GW terrain or not) all make me less and less interested in playing 9th(i was just OK with 8th once CP farming/strat spamming became the game, but it works really well for epic). it may turn out to be good, but as it stands from what i have seen so far- i have already made re-purposed army lists for my DIY chapter to run them in 30K and 5th edition respectively.

At least i know GW can't go and screw them up anymore, and the games will still be fun to play.

Lots or hype by GW, but I bet gunlines will still rule the game.

The only unknown is if they'll power creep xenos to catch up with marines, or leave overall faction balance the same until 10th.

Overall I think GW goes in the wrong direction with all stratagems/abilities allowing to bypass rules (rerolls, army wide invulnerable saves , no LOS long range weapons being the main culprits).

They need to remove gamey/arcade stuff and put back some strategy in the game.

A lot of the design choices for 8th's core rule set created an unfulfilling game experience for me and so far little has been shown to make me believe my issues with the edition will be addressed. I've basically given up on playing current edition 40k and will stick to 7th where I can actually have fun with the hobby.

I've seen nothing that gives me much hope for 9e and a few things I dislike. The fallback stratagem in particular gives me the distinct impression that GW still really doesn't understand how stratagems work and are going to continue pushing more and more and more pointless stratagems into the game.

Super stoked. I just wish the pre-orders were today and release next week.

I voted negative but in reality I'm more neutral. GW has not given me much confidence since roughly 6th ed. that they won't feth this up. 8th had so much promise (and things "promised" that got left by the wayside PDQ...) but GW's bloating of the game (again) and the "all tournament all the time" mindset and ego stroking that infects games like WMH came to 40k, a game far far less suited for such things; making it far too much a minefield to even play games vs strangers and I don't see much changing in that respect.

GW only knows one kind of change- unilateral.

 Sasori wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
What are they doing with soup? Better or worse for soup armies?

In essence, you get a starting amount of CP and detachments cost CP now. So there is a cost to souping. There is also a max number of detachments depending on the points level.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/taking-command-of-your-pointsgw-homepage-post-1/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/

Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?

What about black legion plus noise marine and plague marines? 3 detachments? Or does a detachment start with the HQ

mrFickle wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
What are they doing with soup? Better or worse for soup armies?

In essence, you get a starting amount of CP and detachments cost CP now. So there is a cost to souping. There is also a max number of detachments depending on the points level.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/taking-command-of-your-pointsgw-homepage-post-1/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/

Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?

What about black legion plus noise marine and plague marines? 3 detachments? Or does a detachment start with the HQ

Presuming the same rules as 8th for keywords and their functions for battleforged.

You pick 1 detachment. If your warlord is in that detachment then that detachment is free. You pick a keyword that defines that detachment (lets say it's khorne). Every unit in that detachment needs to have that keyword in order to be battleforged. It also defines which strategems and such you can use or whatever.

If instead you wanted 1 detachment that was black legion and 1 detachment that was khorne deamons then you will pay CP for the second detachment.

mrFickle wrote:

Forgive me I’m still a bit green rules wise, what would that mean If you wanted to take CSM and Chaos
demons But both khorne? 2 detachments so you have to spend cp?

There is no CSM khorne detachment, i guess you mean world eaters ? Anyway, it would cost you 3CP to add a second detachment. The first detachment is free, when it includes your warlord, which is usually the case.

mrFickle wrote:

What about black legion plus noise marine and plague marines? 3 detachments? Or does a detachment start with the HQ