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.

Have really loved 8th edition, it’s been much more fun and easy to get games going than 7th edition, which large numbers of our gaming group refused to touch with a barge pole.

Our group isn’t hugely competitive so we aren’t really affected by all the various cheese and balancing problems that crop up, and we aren’t influenced by what tournament organisers and players do with the game.

I’m excited to see what they do with ninth edition, and especially the Crusade system.

I haven’t seen anything in the previews that I think will negatively affect the way our group plays the game. We have a selection of game mats and realm of battle stuff that we aren’t going to suddenly discard because some tournament organiser in America has decided he is going to take the word “minimum” to mean “mandatory.” And we don’t have any players that are likely to game squad numbers to avoid hode/blast rules whatever they may be.

Generally most of our group are looking forward to the cool new models. So bring it on.

Voted nope;

I dont currently 40k, but do keep up to date on my space elfses

My sticking point is inconsistancy of rules writing, the eldar PA book was a masterclass of this, CWE got a fair few perks, even if some of it will never see play

Then the Kabal and Ynnari stuff was the homework the dog ate scooped back up and smeared on the pages

Then another flip with the WD Harley stuff being good

Heck even outside my pointy ears bubble the DW half baked shambles is another example

I think 9th is at risk if the less able rules scribes get to meddle with core rules

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

I think he is trying to find a way to negate the alpha strike problem that 40K has become, or rather has become more glaring in 8th with the huge increase in DAKKA at the same time cover has become less interactive. people don't want to put their stuff on the table to just remove half of it before it gets to do anything. or sit around for 20 minutes waiting to do stuff other than some armor saves. while the other side of the table does all the things they need to do. AA has been around for a long time but every game system that uses it approaches it with different rules. Some could work really well in a 40K setting but it would require a reset like the switch from 2nd to 3rd or from 7th to 8th.

Obviously that is not the direction GW is taking 9th.

My big problems after looking at the previews is that stratagems have become a cancer comparable to formation bloat in 7th. and GW is pushing "even more stratagems" and extra phases, not a good design direction in my book.

Then they combine it with trying to force smaller games on smaller tables.via meaningless points increases along with an extra mechanic (activations) more suited for skirmish games.


So yeah i see his point.

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

I mean, isn't chess technically alternating activations? So, in that sense, so have I.

The concept of it is archaic in a game with such ranged lethality.

If the goal of 40K is be inclusive, immersive and enjoyable for all players involved. The least they could do would be to reduce downtime between actions for players and prevent entire swaths of your army being removed in a single turn before you've even had time to react.

This is why they need to move away from IGOUGO. It simply doesn't benefit the game anymore to be structured in this way.

Brutus has the right of it. IGOUGO does not serve the game. It creates vast swathes of downtime. Greatly imbalances first player vs second player. It removes tactical decision making (arguably one of the most important things in a miniature war game).

It's probably the single element that most greatly negatively impacts the game.

A lot of a problems, I think, in w40k come from the fact that when you drop 1000pts on stuff on top of someones head and wipe out a large chunk of opponents army with no ability to counter play, then it doesn't really matter that much, if the 1000pts drop down as one chunk or in 2-3 parts.

there is just too many models, too many guns and I think that every system of play would be overloaded to deal with it. But good luck to the people telling GW that the best size for w40k would be something like 20+ models for normal armies and around 50-60 for hordes. Specialy if they were to say that to the sells departament of the company.

Hate to be that guy, but as someone interested in the lower point games and hoping to return to 40K with 9th edition, so far its taking away more than its giving.

The CP change seems fair, but otherwise they are putting the model points up and restricting the number of detachments. Its less models and less options. Considering it was a hot topic last week, I fail to see how 9th edition 40K is going to make Kill Team redundant.

That said there maybe other rules and faction-changes that make all this worth while. I suppose we'll have to reserve judgement for the final thing.

Who knows, maybe the lower point missions are going to be better and more fun to play, then the normal points ones, and even going against what GW wants people suddenly start to play 1250pts games.

I'm more excited. I got to play all of one game of AoS 2nd right after it came out. this sounds a lot like that and I recall my reaction being very positive. If anything how I want to play and what the rules allow aren't the same thing so I am hoping for good core rules and a fair set of compromise with the group.
I'm open to playing it right out of the box but want something a bit different. Not really happy with the way GW has been dripping information, seems way to childish. Doesn't really effect anything on my end, just my opinion.
Mostly I am looking forward to finding time to actually pay a gain after having taken more than a year off from rolling dice.

Karol wrote:
Who knows, maybe the lower point missions are going to be better and more fun to play, then the normal points ones, and even going against what GW wants people suddenly start to play 1250pts games.

That is a good point you make there. Being fair we've only had a sneak look at some of 9th edition's rules, so it might be alright on the night.

Getting less excited with each reveal. While they have verbally addressed some of the issues correctly (demonstrating that they DO know what the issues are), their solutions fix exactly none of those problems.

Of course all my concern could go away tomorrow if they released the full rules and they turn out great, but given GW's history (one I've been involved with since the later days of RT), what I'm seeing is more concerning than anything.For example, games currently take too long. 8th ed was pitched as as a really fast playing edition. It took only a few weeks to see that this wasn't going to be the case. We were still in index 40k when posts started appearing on Dakka talking about how games were taking longer than expected. As complicated a mess as 7th was, games of 7th often took about the same amount of timeas games of 8th currently do. So right off the bat, we can call BS on the claims of "most play tested edition" (allowing for the possibility that it was called out and ignored by GW). ANYONE would have seen that quickly. As the edition has gone on, games have only gotten longer.

GW's first solution to this? Well naturally, given that the two main reasons for games taking so long are re-roll auras and strategems, they are addressing those right? YE.......oh wait. No. They've doubled down on those mechanics. Instead they're ... increasing points values across the board. My DG who were already too expensive and my friend's Custodes who don't have the supposed problem of "too many models" both say "thanks". Unpopular opinion time, but if you don't understand how misguided (and generally just stupid) a "solution" this is, please DM me. I have a bridge for sale and you will probably be interested.

The problem is, it's the core mechanics of 8th that cause it to take longer. With the exception of the supplement bloat, I actually LIKED 8th (for the most part), but I see this new edition doubling down on a lot of the problems 8th has. I've said this before, but if the GW rules writers were a Dr. Office instead of a rules team, and you went to them with exercise induced vertigo, their "solution" would be to amputate your legs in an attempt to keep you from exercising.

I DO like the idea of adjusting table size according to game size, but since we haven't seen any rules yet that would minimize alpha strike power, even this new rule plays into a lot of what is "wrong". Additionally, with Alpha stike being a primary problem, we HAVE seen new rules coming that might actually HELP alpha striking armies.

I DO like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP, but given that there are armies like Orks who NEED CP to function at all, and that theytend to need a lot more than the 12 we've seen, they will have to do a lot of rewriting and FAQing to get those armies up to snuff. This tells me (as many have suspected) that while the codexes will not be wholly invalidated upon 9th launching, many will automatically become significantly worse than they already are. And a lot of those books sit at the back of the "Codex update line". Since GW decided to go ahead and release a new edition while there are still 8th ed books that have gone YEARS without rewrites or meaningful updates, we're likely looking at restarting the whole codex cycle again. So if you are one those "back-of-the-line"books like Orks, good luck to you. It will likely be some time and many marine updates before your army gets fixed.

I know people will say, in response to that - "But they're making that app and giving us the digital codex for free with the printed one, so problem solved!". And I say show me a time GW has ever successfully pulled off an app based approach like this. They don't have the infrastructure or understanding to do an appthe way WE as players would want so I'm not holding my breath. Besides, even IF they pull off the app the way we all hope they will, it will still be ages before a lot of armies get the actual update they deserved ....

I hate to be doom and gloom since I actually enjoyed 8th (it pretty much saved a community 7th had gone a long way towards killing), but I see this new edition as building on a lot of the problems of 8th rather than its successes. I can also see a healthy amount of bloat coming, so it will also likely damage a lot of good points of 8th. REALLY hope I'm embarrassingly wrong here, but I've been present for every edition of this game, and this updates is showing a lot of the hallmarks of bad decisions ahead ...

I have to search old forum posts about 7th ed. I can't imagine how bad it must have been for 8th to be considered good.

I have to search old forum posts about 7th ed. I can't imagine how bad it must have been for 8th to be considered good.

It's generally considered the worst edition ever if I'm not mistaken. Most mechanics were random (based on dice rolls), and you even had a psychic phase where you rolled dice to see how many dice you could roll. It was also one of the worst editions for needing multiple sources to play your army. There were formations that allowed certain armies to take hundreds to thousands of points of meaningful upgrades for free, I could go on all day. There's a reason it only lasted something like 18 months ... You know it's bad when even GW looks at it and says "Yeah - not working" lol

My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.

My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I see bad decisions ahead. It's almost like they realized that, while they initially had a good thing w/8th, they royally fethed it up as time went on, and it now requires an actual rewrite. But they've already gone back on "There will be no 9th edition", so they can't on top of breaking that promise, do the total rewrite we actually need. So instead, we're getting adjustments that will either require players of certain factions to have to have to be ok with their armies sucking for a very long time, OR we will receive so massive an amount of FAQs on day 1 that it will, for all intents and purposes, break the promise of not invalidating 8th ed books on launch. I just don't see how they are going to do what they need to do, AND keep all the promises they've made, while also delivering the rules we're all hoping for. Something has to give somewhere, and for GW, it's typically their word that breaks first. So we're likely going to see whole swaths of codexes essentially invalidated on day 1.

 Wibe wrote:
My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.

On the other hand there are things like Custodes' and Knights' 3CP stratagems that I think they made before they realized soup-CP-farm was going to be such a big thing; they were expecting these to be big turning-point stratagems you'd use once and shift the course of the game, but when you could show up with three Knights and 64 Guardsmen for 19CP and some regeneration abilities you could use them a lot. Cutting the soup-CP-farm forces down to 12CP or less like everyone else makes the expensive powerful stratagems harder to use.

It isn't "fair" that everyone's got the same amount of CP when the stratagems available may be better or worse, true, but it also cuts down the CP farms that were dominating the competitive game and lifts up the armies that had to stretch and twist and jump through hoops to field enough detachments to get enough CP to do anything. It may not solve all problems but I think this change is a step in the right direction.

Tycho wrote:

My biggest concern is that 12CP for everyone is not fair at all. I played DG at the start of the edition, and slowly turned over to chaos soup using only PBC from my DG. And having 12 CP to spend on DG stratagems is in my experience as efficient as having maybe 3/4CP (tops) to spend on Chaos Spacemarines stratagems.
Some armies simply got
access to way, (way!) better stratagems for it to be fair.
The other problem is that the more points your unit is worth, the more worth similar stratagems are. +1to hit on 5meq is nothing compared to getting it on a shooty knight.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say I see bad decisions ahead. It's almost like they realized that, while they initially had a good thing w/8th, they royally fethed it up as time went on, and it now requires an actual rewrite. But they've already gone back on "There will be no 9th edition", so they can't on top of breaking that promise, do the total rewrite we actually need. So instead, we're getting adjustments that will either require players of certain factions to have to have to be ok with their armies sucking for a very long time, OR we will receive so massive an amount of FAQs on day 1 that it will, for all intents and purposes, break the promise of not invalidating 8th ed books on launch. I just don't see how they are going to do what they need to do, AND keep all the promises they've made, while also delivering the rules we're all hoping for. Something has to give somewhere, and for GW, it's typically their word that breaks first. So we're likely going to see whole swaths of codexes essentially invalidated on day 1.

Yeah the rework of CP system actually invalidates the "seamless transition" to 9th that they are thinking of promoting with their "but your books will still be usable!" mentality. Most books stratagems are not written with fixed and limited amount of CPs in the army, therefore shifting the entire balance to armies with strongest stratagems and greatest indepence from them; I'd rather have them have people pay 2 CP per "Additional armies" instead of this whole fake balance act.

Some armies are just not playable at all with their 8th codex and 9th CP system, hence the need to rewrite them (and they can't possibly be taking 2+ years like they did for 8th)

So far I just feel like everything revealed is the bee's knees.

Smaller table is good. Fewer models is good. More terrain rules is good. Vehicles getting their own autonomy is good. Standardized CP is good. I haven't been this excited since they revealed 8th edition.

The outdated rules for player turns and the bloated command and strategem system remain so nothing else matters. I am a Necron player who will by none of the new models until they fix these rules issues. In other words, my money goes elsewhere for at least the next three years. I am hoping the economic pyramid GW created collapses by then so I will be buying into the first Asmodee edition.

To me it looks like it will be aimed at the tournament Crowd, i am a bit pessimistic so far.

Smaller tables, faster games, sacrificing immersion for competetive gamers.




Edited spelling...bloddy phone...

 jhnbrg wrote:
To me it looks like it will be aimed at the tournament Crowd, i am a bit pessimistic so far.

Smaller tables, faster gamers, sacrificing immersion for competetive gamers.

Immersion died with auras for me.

Immersion died with auras for me.

Yeah, Auras need to die.

I'm fine with commanders being able to give a single unit within 6" or whatever a special ability. But to blanket half an army with re-rolls just slows the game down and shores up too many built in weaknesses that all armies should have.

It also promotes static castle tactics.

Martel732 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
To me it looks like it will be aimed at the tournament Crowd, i am a bit pessimistic so far.

Smaller tables, faster gamers, sacrificing immersion for competetive gamers.

Immersion died with auras for me.

So you don't like that the surgical assault troops play 18th century Line warfare around their commanding officer?


I do neither.

I don't understand this talk of immersion.
This isn't an atmospheric horror game or RPG, its a tabletop wargame with actual physical models and a human opponent. Immersion is a non-factor, rules take priority.
Models and rules should make sense in context of the game's setting, but that's not really immersion, that's more consistency. The game already has so many abstractions given its medium that talking about immersion and realism in terms of gameplay is pointless.

My go to example: watching someone tripoint with DC renders every bit of fluff ever written about DC meaningless and even contradictory to the reality of the game.

Not Online!!! 789000 10823069 wrote:

So you don't like that the surgical assault troops play 18th century Line warfare around their commanding officer?

Well that is kind of a how Gustav Adolf died.

Karol wrote:
I have to search old forum posts about 7th ed. I can't imagine how bad it must have been for 8th to be considered good.

LoL

Just search scatbikes and wraithknights.

Best part: community called scatbikes as a problem when 7th ed codex came out and there was a chorus of "we need to see it". Well, they fething saw it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't understand this talk of immersion.
This isn't an atmospheric horror game or RPG, its a tabletop wargame with actual physical models and a human opponent. Immersion is a non-factor, rules take priority.
Models and rules should make sense in context of the game's setting, but that's not really immersion, that's more consistency. The game already has so many abstractions given its medium that talking about immersion and realism in terms of gameplay is pointless.

Let me guess... you started with CCGs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Just search scatbikes and wraithknights.

Scat bikes... some Asian pron fetishists go to unit... yuck.
And I will never own a wraith knight for a lot of reasons. This was one of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Immersion died with auras for me.

Yeah, Auras need to die.

I'm fine with commanders being able to give a single unit within 6" or whatever a special ability. But to blanket half an army with re-rolls just slows the game down and shores up too many built in weaknesses that all armies should have.

It also promotes static castle tactics.

This is all true.

Karol wrote:
Who knows, maybe the lower point missions are going to be better and more fun to play, then the normal points ones, and even going against what GW wants people suddenly start to play 1250pts games.

I am sure they will be. My brother and I were fed up with the bloating scale 8th took on, and started playing 1000pt games through this past winter largely ignoring supplements for our armies and we started to really enjoy the games, and they played much quicker and closer. As a thought experiment I made pour armies using the index and they would have been ~1500 points then.

I honestly think it's the biggest issue with the game. They make it pretty close to the mark initially and at a good scale, but then with constant creep and price cuts the scale reaches this point where there is no space for units to survive. It's just leaf blower 40k. So then the entire system boils down to an arms race of which unit is perfectly efficient and can guarantee the alpha strike, or survive one. That's just not fun. Ironically, it makes 40k more like checkers or chess. Only with expensive models that take ages to assemble and paint. And each side can somehow eat half the others chess pieces per turn.

With the new smaller table and hopefully better terrain system I am planing on playing smaller forces and trying the crusade system. Hopefully that system is a bit better then path to glory, which boils down to random tables that inform you of your next purchase.