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.

But then you run into the issue that many factions basically ignore morale unless they have suffered considerable casualties.

Well obviously you would have to rework the whole morale system to make it work.

But the point is there's an obvious way to reduce lethality in the game, but GW shown absolutely no interest in it. The pattern in their development has been very clearly away from morale-based low lethality gameplay towards high-lethality gameplay where morale is just another way to kill dudes.

I know fluff =/= crunch, but isn't part of the fantasy of 40k two (or more) massive forces clashing and each side suffering casualties from insanely overpowered weapons every faction has?

Does anyone feel good when they have more than 1/2 their army left and their opponent is all but tabled? I know I feel like something went wrong when that happens.

Thats pretty much 80% of aos or 40k i see. And that to me is "working as intended" also referred to as "git gud" or "build a list better".

 GangstaMuffin24 wrote:
I know fluff =/= crunch, but isn't part of the fantasy of 40k two (or more) massive forces clashing and each side suffering casualties from insanely overpowered weapons every faction has?

Does anyone feel good when they have more than 1/2 their army left and their opponent is all but tabled? I know I feel like something went wrong when that happens.

Look at professional sports. The only variable is team strategy and player skill and yet we get blowouts constantly. Even two teams that are evenly matched in terms of skill, current record, and playstyle can play a game where somebody gets blown out. That's life.

I played a 1600 point game tonight VS a good friend. We wanted to test an elite army vs a horde army, so i played:

I played, we staged a game of super-elite vs super horde. I took 30 Hormogaunts, 30 Termagants, 30 Gargoyles, 20 genestealers, 7 ripper swarms, 9 Tyranid warriors, a trygon prime, tervigon, hive tyrant and brood lord.

he had a telemon dreadnought, 6 bikes, a shield captain on bike, and a banner bearer and 6 custodes dudes.

I got ahead on scenario very quickly, and he had a really bad round of shooting, so the Tyranids ended pulling ahead on scenario pretty quickly. The downside is that if he would have been able to stay up on a couple of the objectives, I think he wins hands down, because when the game ended (i was about to score really far ahead on my next command phase) I had a tervigon with 2 wounds left, the trygon had 2 wounds left, and the broodlord was about to get eaten by the shield captain. So I literally didn't have anything else that could threaten him, I just got so far ahead on the scenario so quickly that he couldn't kill enough bodies.

It was a surprisingly close game, despite the fact that there was a significant difference in the actual score of the game, because I was, just frankly, out of steam. I had nothing left but a bunch of Str. 4 shots vs his custodes, and I was beginning to lose ground to his better models. It played a tough game but at the end of the game, I pulled it out. If this were 8th edition, where the game would likely go to around 6 or maybe even 7, I lose that game hands down with no question.

I will say, I have played 4 1600 point games with my Tyranids in 9th now (mostly just using the previewed mission in the free rules) and it feels like there really is something to playing a massive horde. Even Astartes have had trouble getting rid of all of the bodies and keeping control of objectives without getting overrun. I'm not saying that its the new tournament standard or that it breaks the game or anything, but it really is a breath of fresh air to play an army of all little nids with a few big nids and have it feel like i have a pretty decent shot of winning and I'm on roughly equal footing, namely based on the new terrain rules and the shorter table, but also the limited overwatch.

So far, while 9th is obviously a pretty shooty edition, I dont feel like the gulf between shooting and melee is anywhere near as big as it was before, and I've been having a really good time playing all the little bugs! I hope you guys are having fun with it as well.

 argonak wrote:
Anyone have suggestions on what GW could do to lower the mortality rate? Watched a few youtube videos and it still seems too high. If they want the game to be about objectives and movement, they really need to lower the mortality rate a bit.

Was not a fan of wide spread mortal wounds when introduced in 8th. Felt like it was too easy to get access to and lists became built around dealing as many as possible. I am fine with the rest of the killiness, just give me a chance to roll for save!

 argonak wrote:
Anyone have suggestions on what GW could do to lower the mortality rate? Watched a few youtube videos and it still seems too high. If they want the game to be about objectives and movement, they really need to lower the mortality rate a bit.

Easily, lower the threat ranges of everything. Also make it so you can't move, shoot, and assault all in the same turn. I think the issue is that units can do anything whenever they want and can reach most of the board. And ditch the stratagems.

TheAmazinGreat wrote:
Was not a fan of wide spread mortal wounds when introduced in 8th. Felt like it was too easy to get access to and lists became built around dealing as many as possible. I am fine with the rest of the killiness, just give me a chance to roll for save!

Sadly Mortal Wounds have become the "break in case of laziness" approach to GW's special rules. It's certainly not as pronounced in 40K as it is in AoS, where everything and his dog causes MW, but their "bespoke" rule style has certainly led to them abdicating a lot of creativity in favour of just causing more Mortal Wounds.

Seabass wrote:
I played a 1600 point game tonight VS a good friend. We wanted to test an elite army vs a horde army, so i played:

I played, we staged a game of super-elite vs super horde. I took 30 Hormogaunts, 30 Termagants, 30 Gargoyles, 20 genestealers, 7 ripper swarms, 9 Tyranid warriors, a trygon prime, tervigon, hive tyrant and brood lord.

he had a telemon dreadnought, 6 bikes, a shield captain on bike, and a banner bearer and 6 custodes dudes.

I got ahead on scenario very quickly, and he had a really bad round of shooting, so the Tyranids ended pulling ahead on scenario pretty quickly. The downside is that if he would have been able to stay up on a couple of the objectives, I think he wins hands down, because when the game ended (i was about to score really far ahead on my next command phase) I had a tervigon with 2 wounds left, the trygon had 2 wounds left, and the broodlord was about to get eaten by the shield captain. So I literally didn't have anything else that could threaten him, I just got so far ahead on the scenario so quickly that he couldn't kill enough bodies.

It was a surprisingly close game, despite the fact that there was a significant difference in the actual score of the game, because I was, just frankly, out of steam. I had nothing left but a bunch of Str. 4 shots vs his custodes, and I was beginning to lose ground to his better models. It played a tough game but at the end of the game, I pulled it out. If this were 8th edition, where the game would likely go to around 6 or maybe even 7, I lose that game hands down with no question.

I will say, I have played 4 1600 point games with my Tyranids in 9th now (mostly just using the previewed mission in the free rules) and it feels like there really is something to playing a massive horde. Even Astartes have had trouble getting rid of all of the bodies and keeping control of objectives without getting overrun. I'm not saying that its the new tournament standard or that it breaks the game or anything, but it really is a breath of fresh air to play an army of all little nids with a few big nids and have it feel like i have a pretty decent shot of winning and I'm on roughly equal footing, namely based on the new terrain rules and the shorter table, but also the limited overwatch.

So far, while 9th is obviously a pretty shooty edition, I dont feel like the gulf between shooting and melee is anywhere near as big as it was before, and I've been having a really good time playing all the little bugs! I hope you guys are having fun with it as well.

I've noticed my target priority is way different. I'm shooting grots on an objective rather than boyz or other more serious units. When I shoot the grots I'm pretty much forced to go harder than I ever would. He lets them hang out by themselves now (with nearby redundancy) and it's just that much harder to make sure they go away with the new morale rules. Grots are crazy good holding objectives and not even a TFC can yank them off in a turn.

Our movements changed a ton as well. I had a Daemon Prince on an objective near ~20 boyz. Instead of him trying to take it back he ignored the DP and went straight to a different objective. Killing or locking up the DP held absolutely no value to him at that point.

As games limp on with limited units it becomes important to note than you can score 10 points with 1 objective when they hold none. I can really see people holding onto 10 man cultists until late game and using their obsec to cover objectives while not being as easily removed as before.

I'll write up more about the last game after I get some more work done.

jamshaman wrote:
Me: Played a bunch of games in 8th, didn't love it and stopped, but have always followed 40k from afar. I've just watched a few batreps with 9th and read the rules. I play a ton of other wargames FWIW, and just wanted to share some thoughts.

My initial impressions: This seems to be closer to the game GW always wanted for 40K. DYNAMIC. Gunlines aren't as viable but shooting is still very important, although now shooting is about clearing objective areas rather than just tabling your opponent.

Love the coherency rules, I feel a lot of wonk was eliminated there. The terrain rules make way more sense, although still needs a bit more granularity, like being able to see a max of 2-3" in, out or through woods and such.

Some major let downs for me:
- I was hoping some of the mechanics from Apocalypse would cross over, I know that's wishful thinking, but for me Apoc is much more fun, even at small points levels, and is way below it's full potential. Particularly the orders, alternating activation and the damage phase were what I had hoped would influence 9th.

- No volumetric rules for models. I feel this is an industry standard at this point and GW is behind the curve on this for 40K. Think about it, we're saying it's wonky to be able to see through a window to target enemies, but it's ok to shoot through the legs of model in the same way? By the same token, being able to shoot through any unit, friendly or enemy is a bit pedestrian. I'd like to see a "Take a Knee" or "Go to Ground" generic stratagem that allows units to fire through friendly units that would otherwise be blocking. Enemy model volumes should always block IMO.

- See one model and wipe out the entire unit. LOS should be reciprocal - if a unit must draw LOS from each firing model then targeting enemies should be similar in that you can only kill what you can see, or at least have it be mitigated in some way. I'd like to see 40k have a basic ruleset that's kids friendly and an advanced version for hardcore gamers, many of which will be the kids anyways..

Those things aside, I'm exited to try 9th - the CP and detachment list-building changes alone are enough to make the game much more interesting now. Would love to hear your guys' thoughts on the above. Thanks for reading.

Having been in much the same boat, i enjoyed 8th as a template for playing epic scale with halved ranges, but other than that i wasn't a big fan. either. after playing since 3rd all this talk of "hey they are fixing problem X or Y" it makes me bang my head on the wall because they already fixed all that stuff in previous editions...and then went and mucked it all up again by redesigning the entire game. now they have to look back at what they did previously and try to shoehorn those things into the new rules set.

As somebody who still actively plays 5th editions-things that were fixed that people complained about in 8th-

-hordes VS elites-no problem there they both can win. did a game 2 weeks ago against a horde necron player (using the 7th ed necron codex in 5th so he had all the optional units) with close to 100 models on the table facing a khorn chaos force with 34
it was a close and brutal game

-reduced shooting lethality-yep had that fixed to. much fewer shots, much fewer re-rolls (outside things like twin linked weapons or a chaplain attached to a CC unit)much less damage and wounds.

-length of gameplay and objectives-yep fixed. turn 5 with random rolls for 6 or 7 where winning on objectives didn't matter till the very end. so even being behind on body count you could still pull off a tactical win.

-Terrain interaction-fixed as well. moving through terrain had a direct effect, cover had a direct effect (although i still use trees as a 5+ cover -4th ed version-instead of 4+ like ruins, it makes more sense). back in 3rd they had the 6" rule-if you were back more than 6 you could not shoot out or see the unit to shoot in. being behind it acted as area terrain so you could not see through it, this is all before they went to TLOS though.

-Assault armies getting into assault-yep fixed. assault armies still worked very well. game i played yesterday my marines were assault heavy VS an elite giant bug army. most things were in close combat by turn 3. granted i got murderised by the trygon prime, but that's. what they do.

-seeing models-yep fixed-banner poles, wings, sword points, long gun barrels on infantry-none of that mattered, can't see the body of the model-can't shoot the squad, shooting into CC has never been allowed but shooting past them (or betwen the legs of something big) at things you could see provided cover tot he target unit because you had to aim over the swirling melee.

Not everything was perfect by any means, things like overwatch, snap fire and grenade throwing were really good rules that work very well with 5th edition core rules.

Unlike you however i am not excited about 9th at all. i have no desire to play it. i have a gaming group at my FLGS where i can play 5th, epic with 8th ed rules, DUST 1947, warmachine, victory at sea, heavy gear, classic battletech, B5 wars, monster apocalypse, and battlefleet gothic. all systems that i have armies for.

I know to many 40K is the one and only game they play, and given it's cost i understand that. fortunately i am not in a situation that locks me into that position.

Ah I miss playing warmachine, sadly moved to a different area so not as easy to get games. If you wanted to talk about lethality, that game had lethality through the roof. To the point where you could lose the game turn one by having your caster out of place. Bloody fun game system though.

 GangstaMuffin24 wrote:
I know fluff =/= crunch, but isn't part of the fantasy of 40k two (or more) massive forces clashing and each side suffering casualties from insanely overpowered weapons every faction has?

Does anyone feel good when they have more than 1/2 their army left and their opponent is all but tabled? I know I feel like something went wrong when that happens.

I feel like what went wrong is that they lost their whole army.

Games are more interesting if 90% of them don't end in one side or the other being tabled.

Lethality has been too high in 40k since the launch of 8th, and it's only gotten worse.

Based on the way the game plays, nobody would be left in the fluff because all the special characters die in at least half the games they feature in, if not more.

40k always had a high lethality. Honestly even 9th edition is nothing compared to late 7th that was grav and strength D spam.

To me, quite a significant portion of the armies should be dead by the turn limit.
Because, while it's not fun for your cool unit to get blown up right away, it also sucks to not be blowings things up. I feel like most of the most-hated units over the course of 8th were the ones that were hardest to kill - Eldar Flyers and Knights with big invulns come to mind.
And there's other effects with lower lethality, like objectives become much harder to trade, movement becomes more restricted (not removing screens ect.). There's plenty you'd have to change about the game if you up durability a bunch.

What I've seen of 9th is that it's maybe just a bit killier than it would need to be, but probably not much.

From the battle reports that I have seen until now, all games got to turn 5 without anyone getting tabled.

Sure, you end with 2 or 3 mangled units on the field, but that is fine. Seems to me that the lethality is correctly tuned.

A thing I really like so far is hard-to-max scoring.
Secondaries are great, but I really disliked the idea you need to plan around maxing them. I think having risky but higher-value secondaries combined with lower value, synergistic "win more" options (like points for killing), is the way to go.
They could probably use some balancing but they seem like a step in the right direction.

I do think scoring should be either end-of-round or end of turn, not start of turn. Primaries still not happening on the first turn.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I've noticed my target priority is way different. I'm shooting grots on an objective rather than boyz or other more serious units. When I shoot the grots I'm pretty much forced to go harder than I ever would. He lets them hang out by themselves now (with nearby redundancy) and it's just that much harder to make sure they go away with the new morale rules. Grots are crazy good holding objectives and not even a TFC can yank them off in a turn.

Our movements changed a ton as well. I had a Daemon Prince on an objective near ~20 boyz. Instead of him trying to take it back he ignored the DP and went straight to a different objective. Killing or locking up the DP held absolutely no value to him at that point.

As games limp on with limited units it becomes important to note than you can score 10 points with 1 objective when they hold none. I can really see people holding onto 10 man cultists until late game and using their obsec to cover objectives while not being as easily removed as before.

I'll write up more about the last game after I get some more work done.

Yeah for sure, target priority is very different, and one thing that has become very clear to me is that as a Tyranid player, I tend to play very aggressively. Every one of my opponents haven't really wanted to really dart out there and grab objectives, and it seems like this version of the game really wants to reward players for playing a lot more aggressively than they used too. That isn't to say that they should be hamfisted and stupid, of course, but that is to say that sitting back and making the perfect gun-line likely isn't going to get you the end result you want out of the game. I have also realized, just like you said, that movement is so incredibly important because when you find someone on an objective you don't want to deal with (like a telamon dreadnought), then just don't stay there. Go grab another objective, because this game feels like a race for points, and there really aren't any significant benefits to killing your opponent's stuff anymore, other than to remove an obstacle in your way or maybe pick up a few points on a secondary, and if its a monster or vehicle, tagging them might not do the good you want it too, so I guess sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor?

The more I play 9th edition, the more I am coming around to the idea that, until we see the points values of models, the most important stat, or at least the second or so most important stat in this game is movement. I can also say that going first, especially with the changes to the terrain, isn't as crucial as it once was, so long as you have a plan to clear off objectives and push your opponent off of them to let you score. Of course, to do that, you need firepower and mobility, and that points right back to that movement stat. I about choked when I saw assault marines had gone to 17ppm in the leaked points values, but the ability to fly over the terrain, and get to those objectives fast is really a very critical ability it feels, and I think i can understand why they are pricey. I also think transports are likely that way too (and we have seen the impulsor go up to 100 ppm or thereabouts) and I really think its good game design to want players to get their troops in transports and get them up the table. (On that note, I really think models like Rhinos, Tactical Squads, Razorbacks, Chimeras, etc have a place in the game again.)

Overall, the decision making tree feels completely different, and games really do feel a lot more dynamic now.

I do want to offer that the CP change is great and I am 100% behind it. Having 12cp for my Tyranid army is incredible, and I don't have to take 750 points in HQ characters to do so. I was able to use a wide variety of stratagems, and when the game ended, I still had 3cp left at the top of turn 5 (and would have had 4) meaning that there was literally no stratagem that I could not have played. I haven't been able to field that many troops with good stratagem support in a long time and it really does benefit the Tyranid player quite a bit given how hungry the army is for CP.

I'm really enjoying 9th edition so far. Ill be testing some games with my space wolves next!

Spoletta wrote:
From the battle reports that I have seen until now, all games got to turn 5 without anyone getting tabled.

Sure, you end with 2 or 3 mangled units on the field, but that is fine. Seems to me that the lethality is correctly tuned.

This is the experience for me so far as well. It's just popular for people to repeat the same things ad nauseum.

Points may disrupt that a bit. I get the sense that it is a rising tide "lifting" all boats, but where the marines get a hole punched in their yacht.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rbstr wrote:
A thing I really like so far is hard-to-max scoring.
Secondaries are great, but I really disliked the idea you need to plan around maxing them. I think having risky but higher-value secondaries combined with lower value, synergistic "win more" options (like points for killing), is the way to go.
They could probably use some balancing but they seem like a step in the right direction.

I do think scoring should be either end-of-round or end of turn, not start of turn. Primaries still not happening on the first turn.

Start of turn gives time for a response both ways instead of an unpreventable suicide charge.

In my last game we did combat patrol mission #3. We both took the secondary from the mission. It is deceptively hard to achieve - especially with the reduced unit counts. It is not something I would take again unless I was an army with a cheap, but durable flyer.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Look at professional sports. The only variable is team strategy and player skill and yet we get blowouts constantly. Even two teams that are evenly matched in terms of skill, current record, and playstyle can play a game where somebody gets blown out. That's life.

yeah, but that is because people make HUGE money on gambling, specialy online. And on top of just being gambling it is a great way to make illegal money legal. In Poland this led to stuff which goes against any law of probability, as we have countless cassinos and horse races that went bankrupt, which should not be possible.

GW seems to like people to live through similar stuff you see in mobile game. New tank, hero or unit comes out for a game it either dunks on the meta or is cosmetic so no one cares. There are almost never fixs done to older stuff, for sure not to really old stuff, and all content is spread as thin as bulgarian paper.

That is why GW is fully okey with on side having months of total domination from castellans or Inari making the game unfun to majority of players, while at the same time they drop something like codex SW, and tell people play with it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
From the battle reports that I have seen until now, all games got to turn 5 without anyone getting tabled.

Sure, you end with 2 or 3 mangled units on the field, but that is fine. Seems to me that the lethality is correctly tuned.

This is the experience for me so far as well. It's just popular for people to repeat the same things ad nauseum.

Points may disrupt that a bit. I get the sense that it is a rising tide "lifting" all boats, but where the marines get a hole punched in their yacht.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rbstr wrote:
A thing I really like so far is hard-to-max scoring.
Secondaries are great, but I really disliked the idea you need to plan around maxing them. I think having risky but higher-value secondaries combined with lower value, synergistic "win more" options (like points for killing), is the way to go.
They could probably use some balancing but they seem like a step in the right direction.

I do think scoring should be either end-of-round or end of turn, not start of turn. Primaries still not happening on the first turn.

Start of turn gives time for a response both ways instead of an unpreventable suicide charge.

In my last game we did combat patrol mission #3. We both took the secondary from the mission. It is deceptively hard to achieve - especially with the reduced unit counts. It is not something I would take again unless I was an army with a cheap, but durable flyer.

Dont the mission specifically call out excluding aircraft? More to The point, think pretty much every mission that requires you to hold or be in some specific location excludes aircraft

wighti wrote:


Dont the mission specifically call out excluding aircraft? More to The point, think pretty much every mission that requires you to hold or be in some specific location excludes aircraft

Yes, but don't confuse FLY with AIRCRAFT.

Ok, just The word flyer invokes more a jet than a helicopter

Is anyone getting the feeling that the 5th turn of the player going second doesn't impact the game that much?

Karol wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Look at professional sports. The only variable is team strategy and player skill and yet we get blowouts constantly. Even two teams that are evenly matched in terms of skill, current record, and playstyle can play a game where somebody gets blown out. That's life.

yeah, but that is because people make HUGE money on gambling, specialy online. And on top of just being gambling it is a great way to make illegal money legal. In Poland this led to stuff which goes against any law of probability, as we have countless cassinos and horse races that went bankrupt, which should not be possible.

GW seems to like people to live through similar stuff you see in mobile game. New tank, hero or unit comes out for a game it either dunks on the meta or is cosmetic so no one cares. There are almost never fixs done to older stuff, for sure not to really old stuff, and all content is spread as thin as bulgarian paper.

That is why GW is fully okey with on side having months of total domination from castellans or Inari making the game unfun to majority of players, while at the same time they drop something like codex SW, and tell people play with it.

Plenty of old and very old models have received a lot of love during 8th, even resin ones, so I don't see your point.

Karol wrote:Is anyone getting the feeling that the 5th turn of the player going second doesn't impact the game that much?

Depends on your secondaries.

Spoletta 789699 10863179 wrote:
Plenty of old and very old models have received a lot of love during 8th, even resin ones, so I don't see your point.

.

And plenty didn't or were updated at the end of the edition, so people didn't get much time to play with them, or even at all. What did the IH player, that quit the game after a year of bad rules and no fun, get from the fact that for a month or two they were really good, when he was no longer playing the game?

GW doesn't seem to care much about what ever something is good or bad. They have their schedul and they follow it. They seem to have problems durning transition when they make rules for two editions. And in 8th the IH rules are super OP, specialy when combined with FW models GW does not account for when puting out rules, but in 9th being able to over watch on a 5+ is a what we call here a stepmothers wedding gift. If GW cared about balance they wouldn't be reacting to stuff, as slow as they do. They do care about the sales of stuff, and good for them, because their job is in the end to sell people stuff related to table top gaming.

Depends on your secondaries.

which means that if your opponent counters you turn 2-3, your not going to be achiving much on the 4th and 5th, specialy for slower armies.

From my experience with 9th so far, lethality is certainly nowhere near as bad as 8th. The terrain does make an appreciable difference but your target priority and how VP's are scored forces you into going after "sub-optimal" targets for your guns, or spending CP on something you really don't want to but sort of have to.

I've played 3 games of 9th so far (2-1 go me) and aside from some small niggling issues it's overall a big improvement on 8th across the board. In fact I'd say this is what GW probably envisioned 8th to be like but didn't execute on it properly.

Karol wrote:
GW seems to like people to live through similar stuff you see in mobile game. New tank, hero or unit comes out for a game it either dunks on the meta or is cosmetic so no one cares.

I never understood this argument. Wouldn't it be more profitable for GW to just make every unit meta shaking or at least good and viable? There are so many releases that are okay or weak from a rules perspective, that the most logical explanation for me personally is: Outside of some outliers, they don't care and we get what we get.

And you need to give the company a possibility to win. Your "cosmetic" releases are the ones done right. Good model, servicable rules. Diminishing their value by saying "they are cosmetic and nobody cares" is unfair.

Karol wrote:
There are almost never fixs done to older stuff, for sure not to really old stuff, and all content is spread as thin as bulgarian paper.

That is why GW is fully okey with on side having months of total domination from castellans or Inari making the game unfun to majority of players, while at the same time they drop something like codex SW, and tell people play with it.

But that is not what was happening in 8th edition. Some examples from the top of my head:

- The 2nd Marine codex had buffs across the board for the whole range. Some rules / chapters get definitely more mileage out of old marines than out of Primaris and as far as I'm concerned, old marines are perfectly viable.
- Castellan, Ynnari and Iron Hands have been ruled in within months. If this happened during any other edition? Tough luck, they will keep their rules as is until the next edition drops. Pray to god that the core rules change enough to take away from their power or you have to wait even longer.
- Unless you are a tournament player, a simple "can you use something else? I don't want to play against XY" is helping most people in such a situation.
- I don't get what you mean with paper thin? Regular marines for sure had some books to buy to have rules for their new models (what a tragic fate ), but others could get away with Index -> Codex -> Psychic awakening for the whole edition, couldn't they? I wouldn't call that spread thin personally.


I'm happy to continue that discussion in a PM if you are interested, as most of it is not strictly topic related.

Karol wrote:

Spoletta 789699 10863179 wrote:
Plenty of old and very old models have received a lot of love during 8th, even resin ones, so I don't see your point.

.

And plenty didn't or were updated at the end of the edition, so people didn't get much time to play with them, or even at all. What did the IH player, that quit the game after a year of bad rules and no fun, get from the fact that for a month or two they were really good, when he was no longer playing the game?

GW doesn't seem to care much about what ever something is good or bad. They have their schedul and they follow it. They seem to have problems durning transition when they make rules for two editions. And in 8th the IH rules are super OP, specialy when combined with FW models GW does not account for when puting out rules, but in 9th being able to over watch on a 5+ is a what we call here a stepmothers wedding gift. If GW cared about balance they wouldn't be reacting to stuff, as slow as they do. They do care about the sales of stuff, and good for them, because their job is in the end to sell people stuff related to table top gaming.

Depends on your secondaries.

which means that if your opponent counters you turn 2-3, your not going to be achiving much on the 4th and 5th, specialy for slower armies.

Same for new models. Some received love, some didn't. There isn't a particular push of GW toward new models. How much love did reavers receive?
Also, some models received it earlier in the edition, some later in the edition. It's random.

There is no evil plan in the making here, sorry.

If they do evil stuff at random then it is even worse.

And I really don't think that Inari being new and having OP rules for a long time, or Castellans being new and having OP rules for a long time is a not planed thing.

Same with Vigilus and later 2.0 marine codex making primaris very good. If someone hasn't seen or played with classic marines, if they just based their knowladge on a codex or the big rulebook, they could think that primaris are marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I never understood this argument. Wouldn't it be more profitable for GW to just make every unit meta shaking or at least good and viable? There are so many releases that are okay or weak from a rules perspective, that the most logical explanation for me personally is: Outside of some outliers, they don't care and we get what we get.

And you need to give the company a possibility to win. Your "cosmetic" releases are the ones done right. Good model, servicable rules. Diminishing their value by saying "they are cosmetic and nobody cares" is unfair.

I don't think they are good enough writers to write everything good to begin with. But I guess it also has to do with stuff like production cost, space they have in their warehouses, secondary market etc. I mean if they said that primaris for example are just up scaled marines, and buffed the rules accordingly, then a lot of people would never bothered to buy the new model.

There is also small stuff like wanting to make more money. I mean there is no reason, if someone goals were to produce a game, to have bucket load of pages of art people can see on your site, instead of having the PA books inside the marine codex. But I am no economist, I can only speculate or imagine stuff.

The only thing I know is that having 2 years of a really bad rule set, that was never fixed till the end of 8th ed, and which may now be bad in 9th for all I know, is not a good thing for me. Maybe for people that can army hope, play multiple games or to who the army cost is irrelevant it is not. I envy those people a lot.

- Castellan, Ynnari and Iron Hands have been ruled in within months. If this happened during any other edition? Tough luck, they will keep their rules as is until the next edition drops. Pray to god that the core rules change enough to take away from their power or you have to wait even longer.

Ynari were good till their codex WDed, and after that the models were still used as eldar and still okey. They stoped being good, from eldar players perspective, after IH came out and started to beat everything eldar had. the castellans dominated the meta for like 9 months. To me those are huge lenghts of time. Maybe because the only edition I ever played was 8th.
I know that the similiar argument, 8th is good, because 7th was worse, argument doesn't work at all for me. I really don't care that maybe in 4th or 5th ed some armies was OP for 24 months, and that only that is considered a long time, by people that remember that.

- Unless you are a tournament player, a simple "can you use something else? I don't want to play against XY" is helping most people in such a situation.

yes, in places where people buy more then models for one 2000pts army, and where people are okey with buying bad stuff. that doesn't mean everyone here had a super optimised to the point army. But If I told lets say an eldar player I don't want to play with flyers, then we would have to play 1k pts games.

- I don't get what you mean with paper thin? Regular marines for sure had some books to buy to have rules for their new models (what a tragic fate ), but others could get away with Index -> Codex -> Psychic awakening for the whole edition, couldn't they? I wouldn't call that spread thin personally.

hard to translate. It means bulgarian toilet paper that is so bad made that one sheet turns in to 3 if you try to take it from the roll. Schools love to buy those, because they are cheaper.

What I ment that spreading rules over 2-3 rules is a stupid thing to do. And not just for loyalist marines, from what I remember csm had their stuff spread over like 4-5 books too.