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.

Overall quite positive. The stuff they mention wanting to change is all stuff that 8th needed improving so it's good that they recognize where the problem areas are and have listened to that feedback. My worries come in when I consider that while they may have the best intentions, they may not fully understand how to fix those problems. I'm not fully convinced by the new CP systems and needing to pay CP to gain any sort of detachment is a negative for me. That new fall back stratagem is conceptually fine, but in terms of applicability its a complete joke and will never be used.

From what we've seen so far though, it looks far better than 9th already. Even with the stuff I mentioned above I don't think there will be any actual negative changes. Rather I think the worst that could happen is that they'll solve 1 problem but cause another one in its place, that CP-detachment change being the best example shown.

 p5freak wrote:

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

It would cost you 6CP to add two detachments.

We don't know that all detachments cost 3 CP. We only know the one detachment costs 3 CP.

I'm excited about the edition, but the slow rules dripping is KILLING ME!!

Excited. A fresh start without the million different rules pamphlets you need will make it easier until the bloat sets in again

 Lance845 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

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

It would cost you 6CP to add two detachments.

We don't know that all detachments cost 3 CP. We only know the one detachment costs 3 CP.

Right, additional battalions cost 3CP. Vanguard, spearhead, etc. will probably be 2CP.

Far too early and far too little information for me to say

Mixed feelings on much so far.

 p5freak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

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

It would cost you 6CP to add two detachments.

We don't know that all detachments cost 3 CP. We only know the one detachment costs 3 CP.

Right, additional battalions cost 3CP. Vanguard, spearhead, etc. will probably be 2CP.

And I imagine a patrol might cost 1.

Edit: God damn new phones autocorrect.

Generally feeling positive and enthusiastic.

I'm a little curious / concerned about how the change in detachments and CP costs may impact on Dark Eldar, as currently their rules are very much geared around multiple small detachments and they generally need a lot of CPs.

But we'll see. I'm generally liking the announcements so far. The new Necrons look great, and I'm very much looking forward to helping my son add them to his budding army.

I'm even, as a staunch bad-guy player, vaguely looking forward to having a crack at the Primaris half of the starter box.

For someone who is constantly making polls, when will you ever learn to make less loaded options?

 Kanluwen wrote:
For someone who is constantly making polls, when will you ever learn to make less loaded options?

Given the unscientific sampling of his voting pool I suspect that's not the only problem with this data. I expect this poll demonstrates a bias towards the negative by sampling people on the Internet in a forum known for its vocal conversation-derailing pessimists, so the broader community is probably largely fine with 9e.

I'm excited.

I thought the "9 things we like about the new 40k" was quite bad, and once the new model hype died down I was somewhat concerned.
Everything that's been shown since however has tended to be "we see this is a problem, here is our idea on fixing it".

Whether it works or not is unclear - but the problems identified are reasonable.

Can't say I'm excited so far.

Detachments and CPs seem to be spiralling ever more into an absolute mess of design. Their function was questionable enough to begin with once the original FoC was dropped.

Even more Stratagems! Oh boy, that bloated atrocity of a mechanic will not only be sticking around but will now be expanded as well. And clearly we can look forward to yet more examples of "rules that should be core abilities being turned into stratagems instead".

New game sizes! Except not restricted in a way that would make a meaningful difference. Restricting based on number of detachments is ludicrous when a single detachment can contain anything from a single guardsman to 3 Imperial Knights.

IMO what we'll end up with is two steps forward, two steps back, and two steps to the side - possibly off a bridge.

Also, anyone want to place bets on what will be removed from the Dark Eldar codex this time?

My opinion on 9th is basically "meh." Looks to be the same ol' tinkering around the edges, without ever addressing the core problem- the core rules.

As long as GW relies on IGOUGO, and pasted-on special rules, it will remain largely the same game. Light on tactics and playing with/against your opponent, mental engagement- heavy on shuffling toys around while getting drunk.

 vipoid wrote:


Also, anyone want to place bets on what will be removed from the Dark Eldar codex this time?

I'm betting it will be...Court of the Archon.

Really flavourful concept, but definitely in the 'too hard box' for rules. The models are also all finecast, and will never sell enough to justify being redone in plastic.

This will leave Drukhari players with the hilarous decision as to which HQ they will pick to die when their Venom blows up, because 'airbag' is currently the main role and responsibility of The Court.

Duplicate post. (Dakka is being weird)

Blastaar wrote:
Duplicate post. (Dakka is being weird)

Helpful hint:
Never delete/edit posts that appear to be duplicate posts. It is, as mentioned, Dakka being weird...but it usually self-corrects within a few moments. If it doesn't? Then just tag it as a double post using the 'Alert' button and a moderator can handle it for you.

Or just hit Ctrl-F5 and it'll fix it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Duplicate post. (Dakka is being weird)

Helpful hint:
Never delete/edit posts that appear to be duplicate posts. It is, as mentioned, Dakka being weird...but it usually self-corrects within a few moments. If it doesn't? Then just tag it as a double post using the 'Alert' button and a moderator can handle it for you.

Yeah, forgot about that.

As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.

Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable

7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable

8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....

There are more but you get the picture.

Pretty enthusiastic. I like some of what they've previewed.

Very mixed bag for me.

Encouraging: promises of new terrain, new cp structure, new mission structure.

Worrying: table size reduction, cut them down presented as an exciting rule, space marine vs cultist price hike, statements that elites are the focus of the new edition when they're currently dominant, rules that seem to favor shooting over melee once again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.

Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable

7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable

8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....

There are more but you get the picture.

I saw somewhere that de and knights would retain their bonus CPs for particular detachments.

If I can take 3 patrols at 2k and have a net +2CP I am A-ok with de.

the_scotsman wrote:
Very mixed bag for me.

Encouraging: promises of new terrain, new cp structure, new mission structure.

Worrying: table size reduction, cut them down presented as an exciting rule, space marine vs cultist price hike, statements that elites are the focus of the new edition when they're currently dominant, rules that seem to favor shooting over melee once again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.

Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable

7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable

8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....

There are more but you get the picture.

I saw somewhere that de and knights would retain their bonus CPs for particular detachments.

If I can take 3 patrols at 2k and have a net +2CP I am A-ok with de.

Thats not what i'm talking about. But yes we "retain" it, tho that doesn't mean anything till i see the rules on it, will it count as 1 detachment or 3? will i be able to take 6 patrols or just 3? Are we going to refund all CP or some?

the_scotsman wrote:
space marine vs cultist price hike, statements that elites are the focus of the new edition when they're currently dominant

It doesn't seem to have its own thread - but this is probably the most concerning element of what they have revealed.

Anything can be balanced - but its very difficult to imagine, in the current game state, how you conclude you should raise intercessors by 17% and cultists by 50%.
Especially when you then talk about how horde units are going to take more damage and lose the ability to tie up vehicles and monsters.

Much like how I think Nurgle Daemons+Thousand Sons got nerfed into oblivion because someone at GW HQ tried playing with it and went "this is taking too long", I am concerned they want their shorter games and the best way to do that is to throw hordes in the bin.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.

Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable

7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable

8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....

There are more but you get the picture.

Oh i feel you there.

I loved how the 4th ed DA codex invalidated over half my fluffy full 3.5 ravenwing army making it illegal to field. or the fact it took them 2 years to FAQ address the changes to storm shields to older codexes.

When 6th hit i play tested my army for about 2 months or so getting my normal 3+ games in a week....then i shelved it and didn't play again until 7th (at far less frequency and until formation spam killed the fun) because the edition was so terrible. but hey i got alot of love from infinity, warmachine, B5 wars, battletech and other systems in replacement.

I don't ever expect GW to NOT screw things up with huge pendulum swings instead of smart fixes.

The addition of actions looks to me like they are trying to add more complex elements akin to infinity or DUST but without the mechanics needed to implement it, like models having more than 1 ability per activation, and justifying it with "less models" and a smaller table.

I think it is pretty clear that the " a global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’. "
will last about 20 minutes for a hardcore 40K player to break a codex army build wise once they get their hands on it.

A friend of mine prides himself on the ability to break any codex army build for the LOLs just so we can play test them and see how broken they are (and they usually are).

I also will not be surprised to see players pushing for a 2001+ point game both so they can get all of their previous army on the table as well as the extra 6CP being to much of a draw to ignore.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.

Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable

7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable

8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....

There are more but you get the picture.

Hey at least your army eventually became playable
My 4th edition Tau is still unplayable, and will remain so for any foreseeable future.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Duplicate post. (Dakka is being weird)

Helpful hint:
Never delete/edit posts that appear to be duplicate posts. It is, as mentioned, Dakka being weird...but it usually self-corrects within a few moments. If it doesn't? Then just tag it as a double post using the 'Alert' button and a moderator can handle it for you.

And it's always the unedited post that disappears, so Dakka is littered with posts that just say 'Duplicate Post' or somesuch.

 Kanluwen wrote:
For someone who is constantly making polls, when will you ever learn to make less loaded options?

that'd require him to want accurate polls not to just have a link to provide for self justification

Backfire wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
As a whole on the core rules, yes i'm liking them better than 8th, but as a DE player, i was hyped till the last couple days. I've been burned so many times by GW at this point i'm just expecting to be burned again.

Start of 6th, unplayable for 6 months till the faq, then limited playable

7th, removed literally 1/2 of the flavor and units/gear, still marginally playable

8th Finally playable, and somewhat strong, at the cost of forcing to self soup....

There are more but you get the picture.

Hey at least your army eventually became playable
My 4th edition Tau is still unplayable, and will remain so for any foreseeable future.

No worries man find people who play 4th or 5th. i still have my old tau codex.. but i only have 2 minis left over i kept for that army as display pieces. one of our regulars at the FLGS is a tau fanatic(i mean literally the only minis i think he does not own at least one of are the manta, orca, and storm surge, not like he needs the latter since he has the titan). so he is more than willing to play pre-8th ed games with us.

Seems like 9th is more of what 8th was with some refinements.

Not great, not terrible. There were a lot of things I had issues with with 8th, but also quite a few things I liked.

The lack of alternating activations, or alternating sub phases means that the game will still be stuck in the past and IMO, won't reach it's full potential as a game. IGOUGO is archaic at this point, and there are more than enough reasons to abandon it.

I'm going to have to see how the rest shakes out before I can make a final decision on this new edition.

Mostly, I'm excited for the prospect of new models.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Seems like 9th is more of what 8th was with some refinements.

Not great, not terrible. There were a lot of things I had issues with with 8th, but also quite a few things I liked.

The lack of alternating activations, or alternating sub phases means that the game will still be stuck in the past and IMO, won't reach it's full potential as a game. IGOUGO is archaic at this point, and there are more than enough reasons to abandon it.

I'm going to have to see how the rest shakes out before I can make a final decision on this new edition.

Mostly, I'm excited for the prospect of new models.

how is it archaic? Alternating activation isn't some new idea. I've played games that use it that PREDATE 40k.