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.

There might also be the issue of marines in cover being just as durable as they are now, while hordes with low armor saves can now effectively use armor again and thus become vastly more durable compared to before.

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...

There's a bit of extra context to it, where there's a mention of wargear prices changing too and the end result being just one Marine Squad down.

Tycho wrote:

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 ...

Or, loyalist marines will see little change, as shown in their example, while everyone else, especially armies that rely heavily on geq troops and the like, will get hit hard. Gotta sell those new primaris kits don't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
There might also be the issue of marines in cover being just as durable as they are now, while hordes with low armor saves can now effectively use armor again and thus become vastly more durable compared to before.

Are you implying a return to old school cover saves? Please, don't get my hopes up.

Excited. I don't expect 9th edition to be the paragon of balance, but I hope it will be better than 8th and at the very least I like the general idea of the changes.

Tycho wrote:

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 ...

Did you watch the stream in question? From what Stu Black said it's pretty obvious he's talking about people thinking 3000 points in 9th is equivalent to 2000 points in 8th. I think there's quite a lot of room between small changes that "accomplish pretty much nothing" and a 50% increase across the board. It's entirely possible to reconcile the two things. Losing a squad or two from an army can have quite a big effect on how it plays and if 9th sees all armies reduced in a similar manner that will be a material change but still some way short of armies being about 2/3 the size they are now.

the_scotsman wrote:

 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.

People converting things? Heaven forbid! What is this, the middle ages? This is 2020, we have "no model no rules" here for a reason you know!

Losing a squad or two from an army can have quite a big effect on how it plays and if 9th sees all armies reduced in a similar manner that will be a material change but still some way short of armies being about 2/3 the size they are now.

This is what I'm saying. Losing a squad may have an effect on how an army plays (heavily dependent on which squad and what army of course), but at just about any points level north of 1000, losing a single squad does absolutely nothing to achieve the stated goal of "reducing army size for faster play". Don't move the goal posts for them. The stated goal wasn't "points increases to effect how armies play" was it?

 Grimtuff wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 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.

People converting things? Heaven forbid! What is this, the middle ages? This is 2020, we have "no model no rules" here for a reason you know!

LOL, but some people like the models and its not like the molds are done. Also a couple of those models were awesome.

A 2000 point marine army losing an entire squad could be like a 10% size reduction depending on what that squad was. 10 Intercessors lost is 200 points. A 5 man tactical squad is like a quarter of that. So still we are at wait and see on just how reduced things are.

 Blackie wrote:

 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.

Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.

Why would you ask if people are excited? Dakka is where people go to hate their hobby.

Now get off my lawn!

(and I'm really excited. Its a relatively inexpensive hobby that gives tons of enjoyment for the time and money spent, and the setting and fiction is great, so I'm going to continue to be excited for this new edition until we get to a point where its time to be excited for the next onet!)

Seabass wrote:
Why would you ask if people are excited? Dakka is where people go to hate their hobby.

Now get off my lawn!

(and I'm really excited. Its a relatively inexpensive hobby that gives tons of enjoyment for the time and money spent, and the setting and fiction is great, so I'm going to continue to be excited for this new edition until we get to a point where its time to be excited for the next onet!)

Odd... results are heavily positive here on dakka... maybe you are spouting stereotypes while ignoring facts.

 jeff white wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Why would you ask if people are excited? Dakka is where people go to hate their hobby.

Now get off my lawn!

(and I'm really excited. Its a relatively inexpensive hobby that gives tons of enjoyment for the time and money spent, and the setting and fiction is great, so I'm going to continue to be excited for this new edition until we get to a point where its time to be excited for the next onet!)

Odd... results are heavily positive here on dakka... maybe you are spouting stereotypes while ignoring facts.

I was trying to be a little humorous, hence the

but...you're right, the results of this poll are about 2/3 positive, however, dakkas vocal community is a very, very different story. but who knows, maybe you read a different 6 pages of forum posts.

Definitely more excited, though at the same time more hesitant. I -love- the sword and board Marines, and everything I've seen got me geared up for building Templars, but there is so much I don't know about the rules that has me waffling on what to equip models with and even how I want to play things.

Kind of like a "the more you know the less you understand." I mean we got a pretty clear "it's like 8th, only better" but the more the talk about the less it feels "like 8th" and more it feels like a major update instead of a small one. Like 5th to 6th instead of 6th to 7th if that makes sense. Some core mechanics are the same, but enough of the game has changed that it's going to need to settle a bit as well.

ccs wrote:


Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.

Well, I've rated 2322 titles at the moment on IMDB, but you may be right as I never considered very low budget semi-amateur movies. I was comparing TF to movies that actually have some popularity. Americans love Micheal Bay, I get it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:


People converting things? Heaven forbid! What is this, the middle ages? This is 2020, we have "no model no rules" here for a reason you know!

In 3rd edition codex there were entire pages about how to convert/kitbash models and examples of conversions. Lots of miniatures showed throughout the codex were conversions or even scratch bult models. More than half the units/wargear in that codex didn't have an official model/bitz. I miss that mentality though, it's litterally what made me choose orks in the first place.

I'll be honest, I miss the ol' "kitbash it" approach as well, but I understand GW is trying to protect their IP at this point since IP law is a messy pain in the rear that can easily result in losing it if you're not careful.

That said, kitbashing is definitely not dead. I mean I've been using Grey Knight and Black Templar bits to give my new army some more flavor:


I know none of this is on the level of rebuilding half a leg in greenstuff just to change a pose or the like, but I'm liking the extra flavor from those changes, even when they're not that large on the whole.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, I need to finish Tankred. Been trying to decide how I want to pose him which has me scratching my head for the moment.

 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.

Well this isn't adding limit as much as cost so it's less obvious. You can still soup as much as you did in 8th. Just with actual price attached.

Would be less needed if all the regiment/chapter/whatever rules weren't free and would cost according to what value it is for unit but ah well. better than nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:
A 2000 point marine army losing an entire squad could be like a 10% size reduction depending on what that squad was. 10 Intercessors lost is 200 points. A 5 man tactical squad is like a quarter of that. So still we are at wait and see on just how reduced things are.

300 and 400 pts units also exists. And of course depends on what units he fielded. If he uses just units that didn't get much of price hikes while others have units that got big...

 Blackie wrote:

ccs wrote:


Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.

Well, I've rated 2322 titles at the moment on IMDB, but you may be right as I never considered very low budget semi-amateur movies. I was comparing TF to movies that actually have some popularity. Americans love Micheal Bay, I get it

Only 2322? You slacker. You've yet to even equal the # of movies released in the USA/Canada 2017-2019: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187122/movie-releases-in-north-america-since-2001/ Let alone whatever the rest of the world produced in that time.

...I see some people fell deeply into the sar-chasm there.

FWIW, one of Michael Bay’s films is literally considered high art. The Rock is part of the Criteron Collection.

How much of the rock is bay though? Movies are often a collaborative effort and it isn't until your name is attached to a few big successes that a director gets to control THAT much of the production. The rock is really early bay. Bayformers is Michael bays work all the way. That or he stopped giving a gak about good movies before he got signed on for those piles of garbage.

 Lance845 wrote:
How much of the rock is bay though? Movies are often a collaborative effort and it isn't until your name is attached to a few big successes that a director gets to control THAT much of the production. The rock is really early bay. Bayformers is Michael bays work all the way. That or he stopped giving a gak about good movies before he got signed on for those piles of garbage.

"No, you see when it's a 'good movie' it had little to do with him. When it's a 'bad movie' it's all his fault."

Back to 40k:

I'm terribly excited for 9th Ed. Some things I was keen to see, and which GW was clearly toying with (e.g., AA versus IGOUGO) evidently didn't survive rigorous design analysis, which makes me very hopeful that the version they've implemented will be the superior concept.

I am not at all worried about anything that looks problematic right now (e.g., table size changes, cost increases, etc.) as I'm confident these are implemented well.

To be fair, I have limited experience with edition changes being worse. From my experience, 7th was better than 6th and 8th was better than 7th; so their modern design/development paradigm has a great track record.

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

ccs wrote:


Lol, NO. You clearly have not seen enough truly bad movies. (a fact that you should be grateful for)
In the 120sh year history of movies with plot/story/etc there have been some amazingly bad efforts, by any standards, committed to film. Things that make Beys worst look like high art.
Do his TF movies belong in the trash heap? Yes. But they aren't as far down in it as you think.

Well, I've rated 2322 titles at the moment on IMDB, but you may be right as I never considered very low budget semi-amateur movies. I was comparing TF to movies that actually have some popularity. Americans love Micheal Bay, I get it

Only 2322? You slacker. You've yet to even equal the # of movies released in the USA/Canada 2017-2019: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187122/movie-releases-in-north-america-since-2001/ Let alone whatever the rest of the world produced in that time.

Yeah, and how many of those actually came to theatres? How many had the budget of TF? Hard to do worse if you have 150M to invest


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sieGermans wrote:
From my experience, 7th was better than 6th and 8th was better than 7th; so their modern design/development paradigm has a great track record.

From my experience 3rd and especially 5th (skipped 4th completely due to other priorities/interests) were way better than 6th, 7th and 8th but I also have hope that the new edition will be an improvement from 8th.

I'm excited at the prospect of something new and shiny, and it sort of sounds like GW have identified and are attempting to address some of existing problems.

That said, if I'm honest, I care much more about how it might affect my (predominantly Venom riding Kabalite) army than anything else, and some of the things that I've heard have me a bit anxious.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Definitely more excited, though at the same time more hesitant. I -love- the sword and board Marines, and everything I've seen got me geared up for building Templars, but there is so much I don't know about the rules that has me waffling on what to equip models with and even how I want to play things.

Kind of like a "the more you know the less you understand." I mean we got a pretty clear "it's like 8th, only better" but the more the talk about the less it feels "like 8th" and more it feels like a major update instead of a small one. Like 5th to 6th instead of 6th to 7th if that makes sense. Some core mechanics are the same, but enough of the game has changed that it's going to need to settle a bit as well.

Yeah. At this point, I need some concrete details added on to the vague gesturing to put me firmly in the "I am wholeheartedly excited" camp. Part of what's bothering me so far is that they've done so many little puff piece type previews at this point, while ignoring/holding off on what they know is obviously the thing most people are the most curious about.

Extras like Crusade, some very nice art, and new missions aren't why I buy a new edition. They might be why I might choose to buy a Chapter Approved book, but they're not the core rules changes to fix problems endemic to the edition that I want to be seeing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:
I'm excited at the prospect of something new and shiny, and it sort of sounds like GW have identified and are attempting to address some of existing problems.

That said, if I'm honest, I care much more about how it might affect my (predominantly Venom riding Kabalite) army than anything else, and some of the things that I've heard have me a bit anxious.

If dark eldar do retain the CP bonus for raiding party as rumored, then I am pretty much guaranteed to be excited for them. Smaller board size tips a ton of Wych Cult units that were previously juuuuust out of first turn charge range into that, and puts most of the Haemonculus roster into a viable turn 2 tempo setup even without relying on Fire and Fade. Ongoing CP is a good thing for us because we never were a CP wombo-combo army.

If they make up for Drukhari being required to soup by making specifically multiple detachments of Drukhari free or granting bonus cp (Depending on whether a Patrol is 2CP base or 1CP base) then that's a fine trade-off.

At the time of blast rules announcement, results are 69 to 31 percent positive

 Lance845 wrote:
How much of the rock is bay though? Movies are often a collaborative effort and it isn't until your name is attached to a few big successes that a director gets to control THAT much of the production. The rock is really early bay. Bayformers is Michael bays work all the way. That or he stopped giving a gak about good movies before he got signed on for those piles of garbage.

Lol @ Pearl Harbor

A 2000 point marine army losing an entire squad could be like a 10% size reduction depending on what that squad was. 10 Intercessors lost is 200 points. A 5 man tactical squad is like a quarter of that. So still we are at wait and see on just how reduced things are.

Agreed that we need more info, but the percentage is essentially meaningless if it only actually adds up to losing roughly one squad. Like I keep saying - the stated purpose of the increases is to "reduce army size to speed up game play". A flawed statement because the gameplay is currently slowed due to the actual game mechanics. It has a hell of a lot less to do with army size. RIght now, most games are essentially over by turn 2, yet still take as long or longer than 3 or 4 turns of 7th ed. which used a similar number of models. On top of that, if you've only reduced by a single squad ... then what did you really accomplish. Has anyone ever had a game where they looked back and said "Man - that ONE SQUAD of marines just caused the game to go on so much longer than it would have"? No. No one anywhere has ever said this. lol

THAT is why I'm so skeptical of the increases. Right now, in combination with the new CP system, we have all the signs of most xenos armies getting kicked in the nethers by the new rules, and Marine armies barely being affected. This is worrying. Obviously reserving final judgement and will be happy to be proven wrong, but so far there just seems to be so much flawed thinking applied to these so called "fixes".

I think it's fairly safe to assume that armies will be 100-200 points more expensive than they are have now.

I currently have 3 armies in production; Death Guard, Imperial/Chaos Knights, and Ultramarines.

Out of those the DG is a pretty balanced mix, the Knights are skewed by nature, and the Ultramarjnes are a thematic non cheesy Scout/Vanguard force.

I'm crossing my fingers that these armies can transist into the next edition.

Wasnt a fan of the meta shift last Summer towards heavy vehicles and non LOS shooting.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that armies will be 100-200 points more expensive than they are have now.

That's about what it seems like. Which is just enough that Marines will hardly notice it and DG and Orks will potentially be pretty hurt by it ...