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.

The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see

 Lance845 wrote:
Popularity and sales does not equate to quality on any level. Again, every Michael bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. None of them are good movies on any level.

Film is an art form and hence subjective in addition being popular is not a sign of lack of quality.

I think the first Transformers film is slick, funny, well crafted and great entertainment, they then decline in quality IMO

I get you don't like them - all good but neither of us are in any position to state definately that its a "good" or "bad" movie - just that we don;t think it is or do think it is.

Points are not perfect by any means but neither are PL or other systems such as Priority Levels or Stones or whatever.

However unless you are playing a narrative game with friends, you normally need something to work out sides as there are always soem who are happy to just stick a load of models down and others who have to have the best possible build with lots in between...

No you can absolutely definitively say what is a good or bad movie. Not wether you like it or not. But you can look at cinematography. Writing. Acting. Characterization. Theme and consistency. Sound quality. Etc...

The transformers live action movies all have severe plot holes that become exponesionally worse as they go. They all have inconsistent characterization or no characterization. The dialog is bad. The acting is bad. The cinematography is juvenile.

They are, not opinion, fact, bad movies.

And I never said being popular meant a lack of quality
I said being popular had nothing to do with quality. They are not related.

yet they';re STILL more enjoyable then some of the pretentious crap that people claim are "good movies" given the POINT of a movie is to entertain...

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see

So the more things change the more they stay the same?

welcome back to the old FOC

We already had dedicate mono armies with limits on allies and superheavies. guess that big 8th ed experiment in soup was a failure afterall.

yeah barring some sort of restriction, a super heavy's going to cost CPs just to deploy (ditto a primarch, although we might see the primarchs errata'd to HQ choices)

 Lance845 wrote:
No you can absolutely definitively say what is a good or bad movie. Not wether you like it or not. But you can look at cinematography. Writing. Acting. Characterization. Theme and consistency. Sound quality. Etc...

The transformers live action movies all have severe plot holes that become exponesionally worse as they go. They all have inconsistent characterization or no characterization. The dialog is bad. The acting is bad. The cinematography is juvenile.

They are, not opinion, fact, bad movies.

I consider Trasformers movies among the worst films ever made in history, but the concepts of good and bad are entirely subjective. This is a fact. Even something that is widely accepted as good (or bad) isn't really good (or bad) for a fact. Giving people easy access to guns is considered extremely bad here, by almost everyone. But I can't say it's bad because it's a fact even if the majority shares the same feeling because in other places (USA?) common opinion is the exact opposite or at the very least there's much more debate about the matter.

 Lance845 wrote:

And I never said being popular meant a lack of quality
I said being popular had nothing to do with quality. They are not related.

That is absolutely true.

Initially I was quite optimistic. The first reveals all talked about things that I think needed fixing and seemed to be heading in the right direction.

Some of the recent reveals have dampened that enthusiasm somewhat. The reduced size of the playing area seems like an odd choice, but not a major dealbreaker (I'll likely still use my 6'x4'). The Cut Them Down stratagem is worrying for a number of reasons but mainly because it's just so bad while also demonstrating a lack of understanding of the actual problems for close combat in 8th.

That said, this week is supposed to reveal a bit more about terrain and vehicles, among other topics, which could go some way to getting things back to a more positive position. At the moment I'm edging towards pessimism but we've had so little revealed so far that my position could change quite rapidly.

 aphyon wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see

So the more things change the more they stay the same?

welcome back to the old FOC

We already had dedicate mono armies with limits on allies and superheavies. guess that big 8th ed experiment in soup was a failure afterall.

IMO 40k has always worked better when the FOC/CAD/detachments were actually limiting list building choices, rather than creating an all-you-can-eat buffet like 8th or 7th edition's formations did.

9th looks promising in a way that it rewards having less detachments while still being able to add detachments when you want allies, more choices of a specific battlefield role or for fluff reasons.

FWIW:

I remain a bit iffy
THE IFFY:.
There's a lot of left over stuff. PA, Vigilus, Dexes all get taken over.
I don't quite get the pricehikes on cultist vs Intercissors.
I fail to see the Stratagem cut them down, beeing good for realistic melee scenarios.

THE GOOD:
The cp system change is much welcomed, batteries beeing a gripe of mine all through 8th.
Terrain getting looked at.

THE HOWEVER:
Yeah the CP system, with the baggage from the earlier point makes it a bit dubious.
Remember when they said that PA has been written with 9th in mind. Yeah? Remember F&F? more then -1 to hit is no more, yet how come that the AL options are full with that?

See they also need an extensive rewrite and rebalance of stratagem cost, Knights come to mind, CSM and orkz aswell, within the first FAQ else there will be alot of issues.

Transformers is still better than Pacific Rim...so...xD
Yet, good Mecha Anime blows both out of the water story wise...

 aphyon wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
The new CP system seems good to me on the face of it. Discouraging multiple detachments of different factions/sub-factions in favour of one big detachment is exactly what I wanted to see

So the more things change the more they stay the same?

welcome back to the old FOC

We already had dedicate mono armies with limits on allies and superheavies. guess that big 8th ed experiment in soup was a failure afterall.

If it's one or the other (classic FOC or soup) I'd take the FOC, but the best system IMO would be one that incentivises a FOC list but still allows alternatives.

I'd like to see superheavies and flyers pointed to be slightly uncompetitive too, but that's just me. I'm probably stuck in the past.

Not Online!!! wrote:
FWIW:

I remain a bit iffy
THE IFFY:.
There's a lot of left over stuff. PA, Vigilus, Dexes all get taken over.
I don't quite get the pricehikes on cultist vs Intercissors.
I fail to see the Stratagem cut them down, beeing good for realistic melee scenarios.

THE GOOD:
The cp system change is much welcomed, batteries beeing a gripe of mine all through 8th.
Terrain getting looked at.

THE HOWEVER:
Yeah the CP system, with the baggage from the earlier point makes it a bit dubious.
Remember when they said that PA has been written with 9th in mind. Yeah? Remember F&F? more then -1 to hit is no more, yet how come that the AL options are full with that?

See they also need an extensive rewrite and rebalance of stratagem cost, Knights come to mind, CSM and orkz aswell, within the first FAQ else there will be alot of issues.

That's the big one. The flat cp system has the potential to hurt factions that are currently over reliant on strategems while buffing those designed to have very powerful strategems but a lower supply of cp. Hopefully this will be addressed in the day one errata.

Another thing will be the cost of soup. They mention a knight costing a couple cp. If it's that cheap would it really discourage taking such a good option? And shouldn't taking a super heavy from your own faction be less detrimental? This could very well be the case, but we will have to wait and see.

I imagine taking a knight costing a couple CP is because the supreme command detachment will cost a couple CP.

Taking a second detachment of your own faction will cost the same.

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.

Rules themselves were not bad (I liked the core ruleset much much more than 8th edition) but wacky Codex design and all the stupid detachments etc ruined it.In the end it was enormously confused mess.

 jeff white wrote:
Seems like 10 now, no?

On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah barring some sort of restriction, a super heavy's going to cost CPs just to deploy (ditto a primarch, although we might see the primarchs errata'd to HQ choices)

Ditto for Fortifications since we know they were left off the example Battalion detachment. A Sacristan Forgeshrine or Tectonic Fragdrill was already a dubious choice when all it cost was points and a detachment slot. Now if it burns CP too, I don't expect to see many on the field.

 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.

Immersion was the appeal of 40k for me when I began playing. When you had stuff blowing up, leaving wrecks and craters, you could shoot tanks to weaker side armour, you had to be mindful of what kind of formation your models were lest they are all wiped out by blast templates (and those you had to shoot with care lest you blow your own stuff up), you had terrified remnants running away and so on. Yes, from the purpose of pure gaming, all of those were an inconvenience, but it made the game feel like a real battle. In 8th edition, everything is bland and generic, you just move your models backward or forward, turn your specials on, throw dice and remove models. It is like a crappy RTS without all the RTS appeals - explosions, graphics and fog of war.

 Asmodai wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah barring some sort of restriction, a super heavy's going to cost CPs just to deploy (ditto a primarch, although we might see the primarchs errata'd to HQ choices)

Ditto for Fortifications since we know they were left off the example Battalion detachment. A Sacristan Forgeshrine or Tectonic Fragdrill was already a dubious choice when all it cost was points and a detachment slot. Now if it burns CP too, I don't expect to see many on the field.

The fortification network is one detachment I could see costing +-0 CP.

On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."

Then I'm really confused at why they would even bother. The stated goal was to "make games go faster by having fewer models on the table". I was already skeptical that this would really help given the core ruleset, but surely we can agree that one marine squad isn't going to make much difference to the game length?

Rules themselves were not bad (I liked the core ruleset much much more than 8th edition) but wacky Codex design and all the stupid detachments etc ruined it.In the end it was enormously confused mess.

That's cool that you liked them, but even the core rules were a janky mess. IIRC, we had over 50 pages of rules, with something like 12 full pages of USRS. Some of which only existed to confer several other USRS. It was like a "Choose your own adventure book". "OK, I have "Wrath of the awesome hammer" - Here it is on page 57. Oh, Now I need to look up what these four USRs do. Ok, turn to page ...."

Plus it was the edition of random. "Roll how many dice to see how many dice you can roll" should just never be a core mechanic. The psychic phase? A mess. Anyone remember D weapons? Do we want those back because I don't.

Admittedly, you're right in that what finally killed it was "Supplement Hammer", but 7th was falling out of favor well before we hit that point.

Using Power rather than Points ensures that people don't really have to worry as much about TFGs, since they can swap in things on the fly.

Swap things in on the fly? I'm not sure I follow.

Ditto for Fortifications since we know they were left off the example Battalion detachment. A Sacristan Forgeshrine or Tectonic Fragdrill was already a dubious choice when all it cost was points and a detachment slot. Now if it burns CP too, I don't expect to see many on the field.

Agreed. A lot of curious things happening. At least we can't claim that all the new rules are just "so GW can sell more models". If anything, it looks like they'll be selling less, so at least that's a good sign. It's a far cry from 7th where they were literally just making rules to sell as many models as they could ,,,

Remember when they said that PA has been written with 9th in mind. Yeah? Remember F&F? more then -1 to hit is no more, yet how come that the AL options are full with that?

That's one of the reasons I keep saying it's not likely 8th ed codexes will retain compatibility w/9th. They've said several times, in several places that PA was written w/9th in mind, but then have said that not everything from the PA books will make it to 9th, and we already have several examples of PA conflicting with 9th. So if a series of books that was supposedly written with the edition in mind isn't making the cut - what chance to the codexes (that were written for 8th) have?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."

I mean either

A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or

B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.

It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."

Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...

Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...

Considering these specific designers ... it is in no way weird.

Tycho wrote:

On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."

Then I'm really confused at why they would even bother. The stated goal was to "make games go faster by having fewer models on the table". I was already skeptical that this would really help given the core ruleset, but surely we can agree that one marine squad isn't going to make much difference to the game length?

Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.

Tycho wrote:

Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...

Considering these specific designers ... it is in no way weird.

"We specifically gave you a preview of one unit that we adjusted in a sane way, and one unit that we totally fethed up! That way you'll know what to expect from our spaghetti cannon at a dart board rules adjustment system TM all rights reserved! what - you think a Guardsman in 9th is going to be 7ppm? pff, don't be ridiculous, they're 4ppm just like right now, and cultists cost 6, cultists just suck thats their narrative flair!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."

Then I'm really confused at why they would even bother. The stated goal was to "make games go faster by having fewer models on the table". I was already skeptical that this would really help given the core ruleset, but surely we can agree that one marine squad isn't going to make much difference to the game length?

Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.

Yes, but it was couched as a statement that people were "way overestimating" the amount of changes to points.

if the cultist hike was really indicative of how much, for example, GEQ were going to change in price, then someone playing Guard or GSC or Orks would see some pretty huge price hikes.

The alternative is that the cultist hike is not indicative, and cultists are just weirdly imbalanced.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."

I mean either

A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or

B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.

It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."

Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...

Nah GW hates them for some reason, it was only one of their more popular Box sets (Dark Vengeance) and they didn't move them all (just the base 4 models out of 10) to plastic kits, and now DV is going away, yeah Cultists needs to bee more than anything else, OFC, otherwise they need to fix the kit, and can't have that.

Well that's only what the points changes did to his loyalists marines army isn't it? It's entirely possible that the changes will have a greater impact on other armies, even other loyalist marines armies. If his particular army is made up of units which will see only a small change there could be other marine units that received significant increases. His army may not be indicative of others.

If his army isn't indicative, then I would like to think he would not have said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, ..."

Because that implies that, across the board, we overestimated the points changes ...

There are two conclusions that can be drawn - we really did overestimate the changes, and we will be left with a points increase that accomplishes pretty much nothing, OR they understand their own game even less than we thought ...

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
On warhammer TV's friday show (You can go watch), he literally said "The internet heavily over estimated point changes, in my 2k Marines army i am only 1 marine squad down."

I mean either

A) The previews shown for Cultists and Marines are indicative of general trends we will see for points adjustments or

B) They are not, and the price adjustment for cultists is wildly out of whack with general trends, leaving cultists, presumably, horribly balanced and bad.

It would seem that the internet extrapolating those two datapoints into a general trend would be...giving the rules writers benefit of the doubt here, given that they said "generally, things are getting more expensive."

Weird that they'd then turn around and criticize people for doing the thing that gives them the benefit of the doubt as designers...

Nah GW hates them for some reason, it was only one of their more popular Box sets (Dark Vengeance) and they didn't move them all (just the base 4 models out of 10) to plastic kits, and now DV is going away, yeah Cultists needs to bee more than anything else, OFC, otherwise they need to fix the kit, and can't have that.

I mean it isn't like GW sells about 2 dozen modern multipart plastic kits that could be easily used as cultists.

The read might be that
A) The new missions are very focused on holding objectives/doing "actions".
B) Therefore troops with obsec and relatively little damage output surrendered are the best.
C) Therefore troops have to go up in points disproportionately to everyone else.

The concern is going to be however that this just encourages everyone to go full super death robots and hope they shoot you off the board. Which they can probably do quite easily, if a 6 point cultist is anything like a 4 point cultist but everyone's heavy support options are essentially unchanged.

The concern is going to be however that this just encourages everyone to go full super death robots and hope they shoot you off the board. Which they can probably do quite easily, if a 6 point cultist is anything like a 4 point cultist but everyone's heavy support options are essentially unchanged.

They're not unchanged. Heavy support got better with the whole tanks can shoot out of CC thing ....

That said, my guess is that we will see similar points increases across everything and it will be classic GW. Some units go up by a reasonable amount (whether they needed to or not), other units go up by an absurd amount with no rime or reason, a smattering of in-between units, and non of it will have had the desired effect of making games faster.