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.

I'm liking it less as time goes. I also don't like how heavily they're penalizing infantry.

 Brutallica wrote:

 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?

Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.

So far what they are releasing looks really good and essentially seems to be things that the community has asked for. This is excellent as it shows that they are listening to the community at large, so if something doesn't work for the majority of players you can be assured it will get a rework at some point. What's even more encouraging is the range of players that have helped in design (from players like the ITC creators on the competitive side to community leasers on narratives like the guys from tabletop tactics). It seems like they are creating a game that will make the majority of narrative and competitive players happy.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

 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?

Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.

Allright, cool, will it be publicly available? Im allway curious to alternatives, and try new things.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

 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?

Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.

I didn't even bother doing that much, it isn't needed. i am just using 5th edition as the core rules and "house ruling" 1 page of 20 rules that are not even made up but rather the good rules from editions 3, 4, 6, and 7th that work better in the core rules set of 5th.

things like using overwatch and snap fire.

 aphyon wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

 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?

Nah, I've moved on to writing my own ruleset and using that. I just keep my 8E books as a "complete set"/reference.

I didn't even bother doing that much, it isn't needed. i am just using 5th edition as the core rules and "house ruling" 1 page of 20 rules that are not even made up but rather the good rules from editions 3, 4, 6, and 7th that work better in the core rules set of 5th.

things like using overwatch and snap fire.

There's that too. The 8E houserules we* did use when playing 8E fixed most of the issues we had with the game, and we didn't need many. The advantage of writing my own ruleset is that it does everything that I want, the way I want.

* "We" consisting of myself and my sons. The local FLGS has a 40K clique I've learned to avoid.

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

There's a possibility that it doesn't hurt them. Sure. The problem is, right now, 9th is rapidly shaping up to be anti-horde and anti-light infantry. They are structuring the rules as though the biggest issues with 8th was Orks ... and it absolutely was not.

Plus, my main point has been that the points increases will hurt a lot of armies while leaving marines untouched and will fail at their stated purpose of making games faster. While I admit I may very well be wrong about orks being hurt by that points increase, the world does not exist in which losing that amount of points (in a game any size north of 1000pts) has a significant effect on speeding up the game. So it just reads like another one of those times where they don't really seem to understand the change they're making.

It's the start of 8th all over again - where they looked us in the eye and sincerely claimed this was the fastest playing edition of 40k ever. It was less than a month before we figured out this wasn't remotely accurate. Now they're targeting army size as a function of game length when the biggest issues causing games to go too long are the core mechanics. It's not that, occasionally, an Ork player brings 100+ models in a game. It's that every army packs enough re-rolls that you're practically playing the game twice. Add in strats on top of that and you have an edition where most games are done by end of turn 2, but still take as long as 4 rounds of 7th ...

But sure, drop an army by 100 points. That'll help ...

And mind you, I actually loved 8th. It's been one of my favorite editions. I just don't feel like they are addressing the problems correctly so far. Happy to be proven wrong, but growing more skeptical w/each rules reveal.

 Blackie wrote:

 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.

You don't think a cultist (BS4+ WS4+ Str 3 gun Sv6+ LD what, 5? no trait) is not inferior to a Kabalite Warrior (BS3+ WS3+ poison 4+ gun Sv5+ Ld7, excellent traits+PFP)?

I mean, in 8th ed, where anything cheaper than a primaris marine is a meaningless chaff model that just gets shoveled off the board by some dumb gak like an aggressor rolling 18 shots per model, maybe. But ideally, in a game where stats matter, a cultist is far, far inferior to a kabalite. That's like asking whether a tactical marine is really superior to a dire avenger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:

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

There's a possibility that it doesn't hurt them. Sure. The problem is, right now, 9th is rapidly shaping up to be anti-horde and anti-light infantry. They are structuring the rules as though the biggest issues with 8th was Orks ... and it absolutely was not.

Plus, my main point has been that the points increases will hurt a lot of armies while leaving marines untouched and will fail at their stated purpose of making games faster. While I admit I may very well be wrong about orks being hurt by that points increase, the world does not exist in which losing that amount of points (in a game any size north of 1000pts) has a significant effect on speeding up the game. So it just reads like another one of those times where they don't really seem to understand the change they're making.

It's the start of 8th all over again - where they looked us in the eye and sincerely claimed this was the fastest playing edition of 40k ever. It was less than a month before we figured out this wasn't remotely accurate. Now they're targeting army size as a function of game length when the biggest issues causing games to go too long are the core mechanics. It's not that, occasionally, an Ork player brings 100+ models in a game. It's that every army packs enough re-rolls that you're practically playing the game twice. Add in strats on top of that and you have an edition where most games are done by end of turn 2, but still take as long as 4 rounds of 7th ...

But sure, drop an army by 100 points. That'll help ...

And mind you, I actually loved 8th. It's been one of my favorite editions. I just don't feel like they are addressing the problems correctly so far. Happy to be proven wrong, but growing more skeptical w/each rules reveal.

You can resolve the actions of a blob of ork boyz in apocalypse in 1/4 the time it takes to resolve them in a game of 8th.

Movement: Coherency in apoc is 1/2", meaning the whole blob moves together. You make your movement without rolling a single die, all at once. Compare to 8th ed, where in a single turn it is not uncommon for all 30 boyz to have to move 4 separate times (Move, charge, pile in, consolidate), rolling up to 5 dice (Advance roll, charge roll, re-roll charge roll). Also, in apoc, there is no micromanagement of which model can fight, so there is no need for the ork player to get the absolute maximum out of those 4 separate movement events.

Attack: 8th ed: 30 shooting dice that must be rolled 4 times (to hit, DDD, to wound, save) and 150 melee attacks that must be rolled 3 times. Apoc: 3 shooting dice that must be rolled twice, 16 melee dice that must be rolled twice.

defense: large blasts in apoc (the primary way that ork boyz will take damage) do not require even a single save roll, and the blob is either all on the board, or all off the board. In 8th every model must save, maybe painboy save, and each casualty must be removed individually for each attack.

^ Exactly. My point this whole time has been "It's not the model count, it's the rules".

With what we currently know, I will bet my house on games of 9th actually taking LONGER than games of 8th ...

Tycho wrote:
^ Exactly. My point this whole time has been "It's not the model count, it's the rules".

With what we currently know, I will bet my house on games of 9th actually taking LONGER than games of 8th ...

I mean, they most certainly will IMO. What I'm holding out hope for is that they'll last longer turnwise as well. I'll play a game in 4 hours instead of 2.5 hours if it means the outcome isn't all but decided by the top of turn 3.

I am hopeful that the new beefier terrain rules will help turn 1 in particular be a little less bonkers.

The only things i'm pissed about is GW's gakky PR and timing and pricing.
~ We're in the middle of a world wide Pandemic and they increase the $$$ of all their models
~ Instead of an FAQ or giving us a small drip of info or tallking to their community they just drop 9th and smile.
~They increased the unit prices across the board, but kept game sizes the same. (I like and hate this. Its healthy for the game to have shorter games and it helps people get into the hobby easier, i'm just a fan of large/long games)

~ Instead of an FAQ or giving us a small drip of info or tallking to their community they just drop 9th and smile.

But they are giving us small drips of info ...

~They increased the unit prices across the board, but kept game sizes the same. (I like and hate this. Its healthy for the game to have shorter games and it helps people get into the hobby easier, i'm just a fan of large/long games)

Not to worry. The points increase on units will have ZERO effect on game length.