What are some changes coming in 9th that you are legitimately excited to see?

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.

**Mud Turkey 13**

What aspects of 9th edition are you most excited to see come to the game?

**ccs**

New units.

**macluvin**

CA 2021, my models finally painted, and of course terrain rules that matter.

**DarkHound**

I've played 3 games of it now. For core rules, my favourite changes are unit coherency, smaller boards, and more powerful terrain. It works together to make the game more aesthetically pleasing. Units move in formation, utilize terrain, and actually engage the enemy.

I also really like the new scoring system, both for matched/tournament play and crusades. I especially like the secondary objectives, which reward you for making and executing a plan. I'm very interested to see the faction-specific secondaries they eventually plan to introduce.

**vict0988**

None and it makes no sense. I think something is wrong with my head. I should be excited about the new detachment system because it'll hurt soup and help make mono-Dynasty armies more powerful than multi-Dynasty armies for Necrons. I should also be excited for updated terrain rules and universal missions and a possibility of massive data-gathering on the part of GW finally leading to a more balanced set of pts than ever. Necrons moving away from their 5th edition vehicle aesthetic was a great choice, focussing on Canoptek insect-robots was a great choice on the part of GW's model team, but again, not super excited because I already have 3 Doomsday Arks and I am not looking forward to making 3 of the guys with the baby doomsday cannons.

macluvin wrote:
CA 2021, my models finally painted, and of course terrain rules that matter.

CA21 is 17 months away lol, I guess that's when we can expect 40k to be somewhat balanced again after their initial pts failure.

**Vankraken**

Terrain rules i guess but that is a very low bar set by 8th's abysmal terrain rules. I will say I keep hearing a lot of hype over the new mission systems which seem to encourage more movement and less "dakka dakka dakka" which is interesting.

That said 9th is not addressing the massive foundational issues with the core gameplay of 8th which is going to continue to result in shallow and boring gameplay. Its also going to struggle with power creep as the codexes inevitably roll out due to the limited game mechanics leaving few design options for units/rules. I might poke around with a few test games with 9th rules but what 9th might succeed in doing is jump starting my motivation to put together a refined version of 7th to play.

**Bane1778**

More objective based! I always prefer objectives to kill points, the new missions look great and I love the secondaries!

**harlokin**

The objectives/missions, terrain rules, and Crusade.

**Karol**

The spring FAQ, and a new codex that includes the PA rules and maybe new units, or at least new rules.

**a_typical_hero**

New terrain rules and how you score victory points. The few games I had so far already had a very different feel them than 8th edition. In a positive way.

Stoked for trying out Crusade rules with my gaming group and personally looking forward for melee Primaris units.

**H.B.M.C.**

Crusade.

**Gitdakka**

It fails to hype me. Most changes look good but I feel the 9th edition is not radical enough. Too much more of the same...

**Latro_**

The dakka dakka outpouring of hate when the new meta takes shape.

**Blackie**

I like the way of scoring points that forces players not to use pure gunlines that never move from their corner.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Gitdakka wrote:
It fails to hype me. Most changes look good but I feel the 9th edition is not radical enough. Too much more of the same...

That's because it's the same IGOUGO game structure and obvious favoritism out of the gateway with the new points you have to pay for, especially when some people just purchased their Psychic Awakening books that aren't really that compatible with the new edition.

**nekooni**

Looking forward to the

most: Terrain and the new missions. Already played 5 games or so, it's great to have terrain that matters and going back to alternate deployment is also nice.

least: having to use points from CA2020. They're clearly half-assed and the games where we used 8th edition points with the 9th edition rules were better balanced than the ones using 9th edition points. FW points are a joke right now, and so are many other changes to eg wargear.

**Not Online!!!**

Well, i like the improved terrain, ABOUT TIME.

what i don't like is the fact that i am supposed to pay for the pts update that looks done in an afternoon bya drunk intern somewhere in the past.

**vipoid**

Nothing.

Terrain rules might be better but I'm afraid they're just not the sort of thing I can get excited over.

And beyond that, I'm struggling to see what 9th even fixes, especially from my perspective. The gameplay is as shallow as ever, the overall design is still a mess of poorly-implemented keywords and no USRs, Stratagems and reroll auras are still around and the former at least is even being expanded still further.

I'm afraid I just can't get excited over a glorified errata.

**MinscS2**

After 6 games: Terrain rules, Secondary Objective-rules and the (near) removal of Overwatch.

I also prefer the new Attrition over the old "well I just killed enough for the threshold, your entire unit is wiped even if there is 10+ dudes left in it".

**Sarigar**

Terrain rules, tightening up of psychic rules (caster casts all powers, then moves to the next caster), to hit modifiers capped, coherency adjustment, deployment (as opposed to 2020 ITC), mission design and the idea of new codecies will have codex specific secondaries.

Overall, fairly excited for a lot of 9th.

**Cheex**

Crusade.

I typed out a bunch of other things but honestly, I keep going back to this. Yes, it's not that different to campaign games in past editions, but everything seems to "fit" together better, and having it be a part of the core rulebook (with the promise of future support) lends a lot of legitimacy to the system. I'm very interested to see where it goes as the edition moves on.

**tneva82**

Crusade.

**Nevelon**

New marines.

I know we didn’t need them, and I’d rather they devoted the time to cleaning up the back range and xenos. But damn, they look awesome. They have inspired me so much I’m going to work up a second balle company, just for my Primaris.

I wouldn’t say I’m excited about the rules changes. I am looking forward to a bunch of them. Terrain that maters, vehicles that can move and shoot (and worry less about grots on the bumper). I think it will be fun to play a crusade.

**tauist**

500 pt games being viable. Strats, combat doctrines & auras will still be OP, but it is what it is

**PenitentJake**

Another vote for Crusade, especially once codex specific Battle Honours/ Scars and RP items begin to appear.

Cover rules.

Coherency.

Curious about reserves.

Love the CP/ Detachment overhaul.

The new model releases which will accompany new codex releases, especially Xenos.

**the_scotsman**

The new terrain system is extremely good. I also love the remoal of overwatch. A huge time wasting/headache mechanic that I'm very glad to see gone.

The main problem with the game, that being that stuff just rolls over and dies incredibly incredibly easily, is still there, but that's just kind of a systemic problem of offense vs defense and how impactful those abilities are.

GW evidently thinks that anything not dying or being difficult to kill is unfun, given the to-hit modifier cap and their staunch dedication to removing any way to stack up to a 2++, so I doubt that problem will be changed anytime soon.

**VladimirHerzog**

Not being forced to take fething troops in my wraith host is the big one.

The new detachment system actually gives me more options than "gotta fill up a battalion no matter what" that 8th ed had.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

New detachment and CP system.
Finite stacking of modifiers.
Vehicles not suffering move-fire penalties.

Other than that... nothing else. Having played a few games already, I've been unhappy with the new terrain rules, very unhappy with the 5" vertical engagement range, pretty much unhappy with the Blast rules, etc.

**rollawaythestone**

I really like the new core rules. My top three are 1). the new Detachment rules, 2). the new terrain rules, and 3). moving core mechanics like overwatch or super-fall-back to universal stratagems.

**the_scotsman**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
New detachment and CP system.
Finite stacking of modifiers.
Vehicles not suffering move-fire penalties.

Other than that... nothing else. Having played a few games already, I've been unhappy with the new terrain rules, very unhappy with the 5" vertical engagement range, pretty much unhappy with the Blast rules, etc.

Curious what your beef with the new terrain is. I'm making rules for the terrain where I play, and I'm trying to avoid unfun rules interactions. I'm mostly avoiding Heavy Cover because, it seems like a common bugbear among our players. What are the traits you don't like and why don't you like them?