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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
2018 saw 10 codexes:

Knights, DW, Harlies, DE, Necrons, T'au, DA, Custodes, Thousand Sons, Daemons

In 2017 from August until the end of the year they did 9:

BA, Nids, Eldar, Mechanicus, AM, DG, GK, and CSM

2019 was 4 when you exclude SM and supplements as well as PA, Vigilus, and WD Index updates.

They had also just released an edition of the game that completely invalidated all previously printed products, and thus had to churn through Codices so people weren't stuck using Index armies for 4+ years.

The same cannot be said for 9th.

What does that have to do with anything? During 8th, over half the Codexes were released two in one month, month after month after month. That's not something that happened before. Do you really think GW is going to go back to quarterly Codex releases after putting out a new edition and announcing a restructuring of units?

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

I thought I spelled that out pretty darn well, but if you want to argue for argument's sake, then fine:

The change from 7th to 8th was massive because it was like 2nd to 3rd - a complete re-write of the basic core rules and a total invalidation of all previous published material. This is why 8th (like 2nd and 3rd before it) started with Indices, so that everyone had updated army lists for the new game from the get go. They then went through Codex releases very quickly to bring everyone up to speed.

The change from 8th to 9th is like the change from 3rd to 4th, 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th, and 6th to 7th - it's a revised set of existing rules rather than a completely new set of core rules. As a result of this, the existing Codices have not been invalidated. The same level of urgency to update them need not exist. This does not mean that they cannot do that, only that they don't have to.

I know you know all this, but since you started your post with a bafflingly obtuse "What does that have to do with anything?", I figured I'd explaini it in excruciatingly unnecessary detail.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's an understandable mistake, because releasing the changes all together would make actual sense, and what GW is doing literally makes no sense at all.

No, it doesn't make sense, because 1) they surely haven't written it all, 2) there are interactions in old codexes that must be considered, and 3) shoe horning a foundational change to an army without cleanly addressing the rest of their codex will turn it upside down - something you'd complain about.

That is one thing that some people seem to miss: As Daedalus said, they likely haven't written most of the new Codices yet.

Given lead times on getting books to store shelves, I'd say they've maybe got 4 more books beyond Marines/'Crons in various stages of readiness, and the rest have yet to be started.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's an understandable mistake, because releasing the changes all together would make actual sense, and what GW is doing literally makes no sense at all.

No, it doesn't make sense, because 1) they surely haven't written it all, 2) there are interactions in old codexes that must be considered, and 3) shoe horning a foundational change to an army without cleanly addressing the rest of their codex will turn it upside down - something you'd complain about.

Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Niiru wrote:


Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Right, because we haven't ever seen W2 marines before now. Total game changer.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Niiru wrote:


Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Right, because we haven't ever seen W2 marines before now. Total game changer.

The damage output of Special/Heavy weapons with the bonus of shielding bodies with 2W might be stronger than you think.

10 Intercessors vs. MEQ, Rapid Firing = 3.3 wounds
10 man Tac Squad vs MEQ, GravCannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma, Rapid Firing = 8.16 wounds.
(Calculated no Doctrines, no rerolls)

With CM, Lt, Tac Doctrine for funsies:
Tacs 15.1W
Intercessors 7W

Points as we know makes Tacs 210. Intercessors I'm not sure but I think someone said 20 per for 200.

You could say something about Hellblasters, who put out lots of damage. But that damage output drops real fast and you lose points real quick as they die. Having your damage output shielded by other bodies makes for a more resilient unit that's also less of a bullet magnet. Quite different, imo.

will this be as bad as it seems if they have dramatically reduced effectiveness of doctrines or chapter master etc. If pointed appropriately, and egregious rules calmed down, it might not be too bad.
Personally, with a substantial 8E codex collection, indexes would have seriously pissed me off.

I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

 bullyboy wrote:
will this be as bad as it seems if they have dramatically reduced effectiveness of doctrines or chapter master etc. If pointed appropriately, and egregious rules calmed down, it might not be too bad.

I don't think they will reduce doctrines. They'll keep the locked progression that got FAQed in (because people 'played it wrong'), but with oldmarines going up in point cost and Primaris likely not really changing much from the CA20 values, GW will likely reckon that marines need the doctrine buffs to cope with their slightly smaller (if old) or same size (primaris) armies. It also reinforces the 'super-elite of the elite' theme they seem to be playing up.

Because this

WarCom wrote:And it means Space Marine forces will be compact, elite, durable and utterly deadly – just as they should be.

Point and wound increase covers compact and durable, but better heavy bolters and meltas don't really cover 'elite and utterly deadly.' (partially because Sisters, Guard and even traitors will get those buffs) Doctrines allow for that extra edge and allows chapter customization above and beyond chapter traits.

Plus, frankly, necrons are getting new 'protocols' and get dynasty-based buffs to specific protocols. They aren't getting that if SM doctrines are getting reined in. It just isn't a thing that would happen.

 Oaka wrote:
I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

What a film

 Strg Alt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And oldmarines will remain at 1W because they want to squat them.

Told everybody so when Restartes reared their ugly helmets but nobody wanted to listen. Now they are forced to recollect their SM faction.

Considering how wrong you both just were, I guess we'll just continue not to listen.

 Argive wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

What a film

Seconded. I think I'm going to stream it right now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That is one thing that some people seem to miss: As Daedalus said, they likely haven't written most of the new Codices yet.

Given lead times on getting books to store shelves, I'd say they've maybe got 4 more books beyond Marines/'Crons in various stages of readiness, and the rest have yet to be started.

But that makes even less sense. You don't fundamentally rebalance the stats of your game and do it one army at a time, finishing some before you even start others, that's bizarre.

If you're going to do a fundamental rebalance, it's done all at once. That's what a new edition is for.

It'd be like if they decided to take away armor values for vehicles halfway through an edition, and only did it for each new codex, so some people were working with predators with armor values while others were working with predators with wounds. Or like if you had predators with armor values but rhinos with wounds. It's odd at the best of times, and it's downright bizarre when they just had a new edition release that was the perfect logical time to reorient stats if that's what they want to do.

 Argive wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
I've seen this Firstborn/Primaris story before.

What a film

The movie that, if you watch closely, is a crossover with both Blade Runner and the Aliens franchise. Apparently they all exist in the same continuity.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But that makes even less sense. You don't fundamentally rebalance the stats of your game and do it one army at a time, finishing some before you even start others, that's bizarre.

GW writes their books in a vacuum. We'll be lucky if we even get a quarter of the way into this edition before they do a shift in direction.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It'd be like if they decided to take away armor values for vehicles halfway through an edition...

Let me cut you off right there. This isn't that level of change. This is giving Marines an extra wound, not a fundamental change to the core rules of the game.

You and I have been pretty lock-step in regards to how we view 40K since 9th was announced, but please use some perspective here. This is not as big a change as the change from AV to T/W, or the change from AP values to AP modifiers, and so on. This is a change in stats, yes, and it's a fairly significant one as far as relative power is concerned, but it doesn't change the game itself.

Hence why it's bizarre.

And no, it isn't just giving marines an extra wound. It's giving marines an extra wound and kicking up the lethality of many or most of their weapons at the same time, to compensate for the additional wound. In other words, a fundamental rebalance through stat inflation. More offensive stats, more defensive stats. With the promise that months or years down the road they'll get around to applying the same stat inflation to everybody else. But in the meantime, you'll have a world where some factions have their Super Saiyan version and others are stuck with the old, pre-inflation stats. That's a recipe for disaster, even if they do a much better job pointing it that they have in the past.

I've edited the above post to add a bit more.

Voss wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
will this be as bad as it seems if they have dramatically reduced effectiveness of doctrines or chapter master etc. If pointed appropriately, and egregious rules calmed down, it might not be too bad.

I don't think they will reduce doctrines. They'll keep the locked progression that got FAQed in (because people 'played it wrong'), but with oldmarines going up in point cost and Primaris likely not really changing much from the CA20 values, GW will likely reckon that marines need the doctrine buffs to cope with their slightly smaller (if old) or same size (primaris) armies. It also reinforces the 'super-elite of the elite' theme they seem to be playing up.

Because this

WarCom wrote:And it means Space Marine forces will be compact, elite, durable and utterly deadly – just as they should be.

Point and wound increase covers compact and durable, but better heavy bolters and meltas don't really cover 'elite and utterly deadly.' (partially because Sisters, Guard and even traitors will get those buffs) Doctrines allow for that extra edge and allows chapter customization above and beyond chapter traits.

Plus, frankly, necrons are getting new 'protocols' and get dynasty-based buffs to specific protocols. They aren't getting that if SM doctrines are getting reined in. It just isn't a thing that would happen.

The general doctrine can be adjusted to be less game altering than an additional AP for weapons A&B each while still leaving space for the Chapter-specific doctrines. They've already shown that many Chapter Tactics will be taking a step back from being as effective as they are.

Imagine Doctrines that remove some of the downsides of specific weapons types like:
Devastator Doctrine: Infantry models with Heavy Weapons ignore the -1 to Hit when they move.
Tactical Doctrine: When firing Assault Weapons after advancing, ignore the -1 to Hit Penalty.

I'm not saying that is what they are going to do, but they have many options to keep Doctrines while changing the rule from the current overpowered version. Just compare Doctrines to Sisters Sacred Rights to get an idea of the power difference they can move down towards.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Niiru wrote:


Then they should have wriiten the books, before releasing 9th.

Or done another index like they did in 8th.

Or worked out some basic updates in a chapter approved so everyone is at least playing the same game.

After october, the only games worth playing will be narines vs marines or xenos vs xenos.

Right, because we haven't ever seen W2 marines before now. Total game changer.

The damage output of Special/Heavy weapons with the bonus of shielding bodies with 2W might be stronger than you think.

10 Intercessors vs. MEQ, Rapid Firing = 3.3 wounds
10 man Tac Squad vs MEQ, GravCannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma, Rapid Firing = 8.16 wounds.
(Calculated no Doctrines, no rerolls)

With CM, Lt, Tac Doctrine for funsies:
Tacs 15.1W
Intercessors 7W

Points as we know makes Tacs 210. Intercessors I'm not sure but I think someone said 20 per for 200.

You could say something about Hellblasters, who put out lots of damage. But that damage output drops real fast and you lose points real quick as they die. Having your damage output shielded by other bodies makes for a more resilient unit that's also less of a bullet magnet. Quite different, imo.

Points as they are though. That's the key.
We already know from the Munitorium that tons of things went up. However, that 15 point Heavy Bolter is not the codex Heavy Bolter, just like those 15 point Tactical Marines are not the new 18 point ones.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Hence why it's bizarre.

And no, it isn't just giving marines an extra wound. It's giving marines an extra wound and kicking up the lethality of many or most of their weapons at the same time, to compensate for the additional wound. In other words, a fundamental rebalance through stat inflation. More offensive stats, more defensive stats. With the promise that months or years down the road they'll get around to applying the same stat inflation to everybody else. But in the meantime, you'll have a world where some factions have their Super Saiyan version and others are stuck with the old, pre-inflation stats. That's a recipe for disaster, even if they do a much better job pointing it that they have in the past.

That's not 100% true though.

They are not increasing the lethality, they are just buffing the less used weapons.
They are buffing heavy bolters, flamers and melta. The most common choices like plasma, lascannons and gravs are not getting touched.

The buff on the melta gun isn't even something that huge, the only one which is worrysome is the buff to multimelta, but if they price that thing at someting like 35 points, then it can be fine.
If in the same codex they also nerf eradicators (which after getting some games with them, they are as broken as expected), then marines are probably getting much more on the durable side of things than on the lethal.

That and it's not just Marines. It's all Imperial and also CSM units that are getting the weapons buff.

It's not a fundamental change to the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That and it's not just Marines. It's all Imperial and also CSM units that are getting the weapons buff.

It's not a fundamental change to the game.

They made the cups smaller, but now you get 3 free refills?

THE SODA FOUNTAIN IS RUINED, BURN IT ALL DOWN

Tbf , i Find the 30 " boltguns more problematic then +1w more on classic marines...
Especially when gw lowered Minimum size boards.

Shock assault at this point is not going away, or the tac marines would have been increased to 2 attacks. Marines with a single attack has always felt pathetic and I don't think that GW is re enacting that.

Bolter Discipline instead is probably going away. It did run against the concept of the SM faction, and the increased range of the bolters seems to indicate that they are meant to close range if they want to rapid fire.

Spoletta wrote:
Shock assault at this point is not going away, or the tac marines would have been increased to 2 attacks. Marines with a single attack has always felt pathetic and I don't think that GW is re enacting that.

Bolter Discipline instead is probably going away. It did run against the concept of the SM faction, and the increased range of the bolters seems to indicate that they are meant to close range if they want to rapid fire.

if bolter disipline goes away that'll be a serious nerf to my ultramarines :(

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? During 8th, over half the Codexes were released two in one month, month after month after month. That's not something that happened before. Do you really think GW is going to go back to quarterly Codex releases after putting out a new edition and announcing a restructuring of units?

8th ed had no codexes before so needed codexes fast. 9th ed has codexes.

GW wants to release miniatures. Seeing any model not released ~3 months sells already only trickles and GW gets most of sales via models releasing just books rather than miniatures isn't good.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

I thought I spelled that out pretty darn well, but if you want to argue for argument's sake, then fine:

The change from 7th to 8th was massive because it was like 2nd to 3rd - a complete re-write of the basic core rules and a total invalidation of all previous published material. This is why 8th (like 2nd and 3rd before it) started with Indices, so that everyone had updated army lists for the new game from the get go. They then went through Codex releases very quickly to bring everyone up to speed.

The change from 8th to 9th is like the change from 3rd to 4th, 4th to 5th, 5th to 6th, and 6th to 7th - it's a revised set of existing rules rather than a completely new set of core rules. As a result of this, the existing Codices have not been invalidated. The same level of urgency to update them need not exist. This does not mean that they cannot do that, only that they don't have to.

I know you know all this, but since you started your post with a bafflingly obtuse "What does that have to do with anything?", I figured I'd explaini it in excruciatingly unnecessary detail.

I think the new business model GW's shifted to will push an aggressive cycling of codexes to something of a similar level to 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? During 8th, over half the Codexes were released two in one month, month after month after month. That's not something that happened before. Do you really think GW is going to go back to quarterly Codex releases after putting out a new edition and announcing a restructuring of units?

8th ed had no codexes before so needed codexes fast. 9th ed has codexes.

GW wants to release miniatures. Seeing any model not released ~3 months sells already only trickles and GW gets most of sales via models releasing just books rather than miniatures isn't good.

I don't think you have any way to prove this

I think the more interesting question is what will change for the xenos because of the increased resilience of Marines. An extra wound is no small feat. It means extra resilience which results in guns staying longer on the table and making them harder to shift off objectives.

I have a few ideas:

- All Aspects go to 2 Wound min. Will help differentiate between Aspects and Guardians.
- Shuriken Catapults go back to 24"
- Avenger Shuriken Catapults go to 30"
- Drukhari Poison weapon go to wounds on a 2+ or they get a -1 AP.
- Scatter Laser becomes -1 AP
- Shuriken Cannon becomes range 36 with -1 AP and the -3 AP bonus.

They've basically opened up a lot of design space for changes to Aeldari weapons with these changes to Marines. The big question is whether they will capitalize on it or leave it as is.