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.

Eh, you pretty much just drop the troop and HQ tax you had to bring for CP before.

Tycho wrote:

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 ...

I think it depends. We really need to see how people pivot to using the new detachment system and CPs.

I am getting more and more pessimistic With each new reveal. I cant see any new rules that realisticly could save orks now.

Still -1 to hit and still +1 to save. Looks like it will be primaris all the way...

I've been really excited, and most of the news has just kept that excitement going.

Things I like:
1. Smaller armies (across-the-board point increases), along with revamping army requirements should help make army building more focused.
2. Additional/specialized detachments costing CP should force some strategic choices instead of being the go-to.
3. Smaller boards and revamped cover should help balance shooting and melee, make movement more strategic.
4. Increased emphasis on holding majority of objectives instead of random objective cards should help force confrontation, and having secondary "flavor" objectives for your army will be an easy way to balance out those armies that struggle. This one feels big to me.
5. Being able to shoot your big stuff in melee. And being able to target stuff you're not in melee with, assuming you can kill that last little gribbly blocking the barrel first!

Things that worry me:
1. I've had to re-read a few of their rules to make sense of them. There are already flowcharts popping up in regards to melee bonuses from cover. The more complicated the wording, the more edge cases to consider - and GW hasn't been great about rules bloat.
2. I need to see cover in action before I trust it.
3. Capping modifiers has the potential to be easily nullified/samey feeling. Don't get me wrong, it's dumb when my Teslas can't proc because I have no way to actually roll a 6, but modifiers are a great way to add flavor to an army.
4. A big part of their problem in 8th was the rapid-fire releases and power creep, without taking the time to balance properly. I don't see that changing.

 jhnbrg wrote:
I am getting more and more pessimistic With each new reveal. I cant see any new rules that realisticly could save orks now.

Still -1 to hit and still +1 to save. Looks like it will be primaris all the way...

After the latest play test reveal. i am amused with the idea that hey we want this to work like 5th ed where the games are faster and close combat armies have a chance in an 8th ed setting.....doing so requires them to reduce the size of tables, reduce the size of armies, bring back some semblance of terrain, add even more phases (as opposed to simply 3-move/shoot/assault with reserves, psyker powers, and consolidation built into those 3 phases), and a more convoluted scoring systems while still maintaining the increased lethality in shooting.

I was only mildly tolerant of 8th since it worked really well for playing epic scale. good thing i still have all my books for other editions since 9th is looking even less appealing.

 jhnbrg wrote:
I am getting more and more pessimistic With each new reveal. I cant see any new rules that realisticly could save orks now.

Still -1 to hit and still +1 to save. Looks like it will be primaris all the way...

Point costs?

Martel732 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
I am getting more and more pessimistic With each new reveal. I cant see any new rules that realisticly could save orks now.

Still -1 to hit and still +1 to save. Looks like it will be primaris all the way...

Point costs?

Given the price increase for the cultists i cant see ork boyz getting a points drop or even staying at current prize.

 jhnbrg wrote:


Given the price increase for the cultists i cant see ork boyz getting a points drop or even staying at current prize.

Well I think units like cultists or guardsmen aren't inferior to ork boyz or kabalite warriors, in fact they're just as squishy but have better shooting. If boyz and kabalists are 7ppm, those units should have been 6ppm since the beginning. Two ork boyz definitely don't make an intercessor, which is 20ppm and outperforms the greenskin troop dude by 3x at least. But I also fear they'll get a price hike, even if they don't deserve it.

I'd been saying for some time that when 9th came, I wasn't moving to it.

So far, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to change that decision, and only encourages me getting off the merry-go-round.

Though I admit this appears to be more than a mere rules organization and clean-up than I thought. However, the changes they seem to actually highlight strike me as just arbitrary change arounds and are likely to cause as many issues as they supposedly fix.

 Stormonu wrote:
I'd been saying for some time that when 9th came, I wasn't moving to it.

So far, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to change that decision, and only encourages me getting off the merry-go-round.

Though I admit this appears to be more than a mere rules organization and clean-up than I thought. However, the changes they seem to actually highlight strike me as just arbitrary change arounds and are likely to cause as many issues as they supposedly fix.

After seeing them double down on the bad i am in the same boat. i think i will be promoting a casual 5th edition group at my FLGS so we can enjoy the game again.

Im actually starting to grow a A BIT optimistic, being able to hide bloodthirsters, terrain amount guide, table size, actually goes along way for my world eaters/khorne demons. But as usual they are more likely to go back on their word with stupid FAQ's, they have done that alot lately (please stop that GW). Now we just need fallback and overwatch to get a kick in the nutsack and we are off to a really good start id say.

Furthermore i saw Tabletop Tactics podcast give the new edition their stamp of approval as gametesters, and i know Lawrence got a good grip on what works and what dosent.

People staying in 3rd/5th/7th is understandable, they have a special feel, but staying in 8th hah, thats absolute crazytalk to me. But hey, each to their own i suppose.

 Sasori wrote:

I think it depends. We really need to see how people pivot to using the new detachment system and CPs.

I play GK, my army is already small, I don't want it to get even smaller.

I already struggle to imagine how an GK army with termintors is suppose to hold multiple objectives while doing nothing in the psychic and shoting phase. That is like standing and letting opponents shots. Now if termintors or elite armies were supper resilient, I would get it. But they are not, so those objectives are going to be killzones, specialy if opponents put them in the open. The CP and new detachments are worries some too. There is very few CP to start with, and it is not that great to gain 2CP per turn, even if it is better then what other armies have, just because a ton of our stratagems cost 2 or more CP.

People can gravitate to what ever they want, but GW decide to give my army a codex that was out of date for 8th ed in mind. If they add higher point costs too, it is just going to be stupid, specialy as they already said that GK stuff was overcosted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:
Im actually starting to grow a A BIT optimistic, being able to hide bloodthirsters, terrain amount guide, table size, actually goes along way for my world eaters/khorne demons. But as usual they are more likely to go back on their word with stupid FAQ's, they have done that alot lately (please stop that GW). Now we just need fallback and overwatch to get a kick in the nutsack and we are off to a really good start id say.

I remember the GK article that came with its new codex in 8th ed. And it told how aweseome, but also crucial to the army mass deep striking is going to be. And then GW change it to, you can only deep strike 50% of your army.

Karol wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

I think it depends. We really need to see how people pivot to using the new detachment system and CPs.

I play GK, my army is already small, I don't want it to get even smaller.

I already struggle to imagine how an GK army with termintors is suppose to hold multiple objectives while doing nothing in the psychic and shoting phase. That is like standing and letting opponents shots. Now if termintors or elite armies were supper resilient, I would get it. But they are not, so those objectives are going to be killzones, specialy if opponents put them in the open. The CP and new detachments are worries some too. There is very few CP to start with, and it is not that great to gain 2CP per turn, even if it is better then what other armies have, just because a ton of our stratagems cost 2 or more CP.

People can gravitate to what ever they want, but GW decide to give my army a codex that was out of date for 8th ed in mind. If they add higher point costs too, it is just going to be stupid, specialy as they already said that GK stuff was overcosted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:
Im actually starting to grow a A BIT optimistic, being able to hide bloodthirsters, terrain amount guide, table size, actually goes along way for my world eaters/khorne demons. But as usual they are more likely to go back on their word with stupid FAQ's, they have done that alot lately (please stop that GW). Now we just need fallback and overwatch to get a kick in the nutsack and we are off to a really good start id say.

I remember the GK article that came with its new codex in 8th ed. And it told how aweseome, but also crucial to the army mass deep striking is going to be. And then GW change it to, you can only deep strike 50% of your army.

Yeah. They have comitted alot of "crimes", and blantantly disregarded commen sense in the name of tournament trends and sometimes FROM OUT OF NOWHERE off the cuff rules changes (suddenly demons with 3++ was waaay too strong, yet no one played that crap). On that, i am no longer supporting their digital or paperback with my money. I am probably gonna buy 9th book if it come out resonable.

I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?

How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon

It looks good so far but GW's track record is that it will quickly spiral out of control in some way. Unless they *continue* to balance things and not bloat the game again and avoid immediate power creep, it will last a few months at most before it becomes a dumpster fire again.

I bought into the lie of 8th being simpler so I am wary of 9th, I will wait and see with this one and then jump in if I like the core rules.

But 8th is simpler than the convoluted mess that was 7th.

 Tyran wrote:
But 8th is simpler than the convoluted mess that was 7th.

Sort of. The "core rules" are simpler. It's not really simpler to play. There are vastly more unique special rules to keep track of, the proliferation of rerolls makes rolling dice much slower, and the interactions of faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, warlord traits, psychic powers, chaplain prayers, and stratagems are much more complicated.

Except that 7th basically also had all that even if in a different flavor.

It has several pages full of USRs, most of which you would never use so they were hard to memorize (e.g. does anyone remember what Zealot did?) and several different unit types, each one with their own intrinsic USRs.

Instead of stratagems it had formation galore, which most exaggerated example was the so called "Decurion" detachments that were a complex system of different formations in a large super formation.

And the worst offender IMHO was the over-complicated psychic phase, in which you had to have some godly administration skills to keep up how many warp dice you have, your psychic powers (and there were so many more powers in 7th) and their interactions (remember the re-rolling 2++).

The only thing that is truly new with 40k is sub-faction rules (unless you played Marines), but last time I checked most of us like having sub-faction rules instead of it being a marine only club.

I'm not saying 8th is simple to play, but it is simpler than 7th.

Not a fan of the arbitrary 5" height for obscuring. 4" dense trees = see through. 5" sparse trees = no LOS for you.

 Chamberlain wrote:
Not a fan of the arbitrary 5" height for obscuring. 4" dense trees = see through. 5" sparse trees = no LOS for you.

Then don't use the keyword "obscured" with your sparse trees if it annoys you...

 jeff white wrote:
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.

Given the slow drip of details? Neither.

I'm looking forward to 9th on the basis that there may be needed improvements from 8th, but preview pacing doesn't matter.

dhallnet wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Not a fan of the arbitrary 5" height for obscuring. 4" dense trees = see through. 5" sparse trees = no LOS for you.

Then don't use the keyword "obscured" with your sparse trees if it annoys you...

That doesn't solve the 4" dense trees. If only they could grow a bit more and suddenly block line of sight despite nothing at all changing about how dense they are.

A 20" tower surrounded by 5" ruins can't be used as a sniper position under these rules. Well I guess you can apply another terrain template on it "Firing position" that lets you ignore LOS. But something tells me that won't be in the rules.

Two identical ruins except one has a flag pole extending up to 5". One qualifies, one doesn't.

My prediction is that these rules will be ignored outside of events in favour of what makes sense in the moment. Which is fine and how I'll play, but it's just strange to make how well something blocks LOS be based on it's height rather than it's density/how well it actually obscures vision.

 Chamberlain wrote:

That doesn't solve the 4" dense trees. If only they could grow a bit more and suddenly block line of sight despite nothing at all changing about how dense they are.

If that forest is so "dense", it already block LOS, just not infinitely vertically.
They have to choose a height because otherwise some people would try to pass a rock as a skyscraper and any other number they would chose, you would be arguing about it too, so it doesn't matter.
The point is, you use the rules where it makes sense or where both you and your opponent are fine with.

The confusing and unintuative nature of the new Terrain rules is putting me off a bit.

I am going to dive behind [[Hard Cover]] - so that the attacker can be protected on the way in and it gives me no extra protection....

The [[Obscuring]] Terrain only obscurs some things but a solid piece of non [[Obscuring]] terrain can potentially screen anything.

WTF

 addnid wrote:
I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?

How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon

One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.

Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.

It really is strange that holding a barrier is better for the attackers. The charging unit will be on one side of it and get the bonus but the defenders actually occupying the defensive position won't. It's such a bizarre choice.

 Chamberlain wrote:
It really is strange that holding a barrier is better for the attackers. The charging unit will be on one side of it and get the bonus but the defenders actually occupying the defensive position won't. It's such a bizarre choice.

Yeah is it an error - is it supposed to do something? Makes zero sense

 Stormonu wrote:

 addnid wrote:
I simply can't understand why anyone would state "I won't be playing this edition" despite having read the rules. All we have had is previews (very badly selected by the GW PR team, no question there)
Even if what we have seen so far seems like total gak to you, perhaps you will like the rest which is yet to come ?

How is it even remotely healthy to be such a pessimistic neckbeard ?? Whine all you want end of next week maybe, but now too soon

One does not need to taste gak to realize it is gak upon seeing it.

Besides, as I said I was never intending to go to 9th anyway. No interest in buying another round of books for them to be invalidated two more years down the road or with the next yearly CA.

So you stick with way worse gak called 8th?

Miniatures and rules are separate so people should play the edition they like with any house rules they agree to. And when they go to an event they should play the rules the organizer sets.

It's not hard. If a game is working for you, why not keep playing it?