Switch Theme:

So, in light of all the announced recent changes, who else feels less like playing 40k now?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Our games have been less about a single unit capturing a strategic objective and more about portions of armies vying for control of that battlefield area. It gets more interesting with terrain laid out to restrict, obstruct, or otherwise hinder clearly targeting the area with long-range units. You don't have to totally block LOS, but -1 to hit makes a difference. Leaving a table with inconsequential terrain in relation to the objectives is probably where a good portion of problems come into play. You just create forced deployment positions and clear lanes that simplifies the game into who can shoot better again.

Not saying it is all wrong, just trying to highlight some of the differences that seem to be causing friction and reluctance in the community. The changes have been pretty big and jarring, i totally understand shutting it down.
   
Made in es
Wicked Wych With a Whip





I've just played a couple 8th games and 9th is going to be my first wh40k edition, coming from KT, so I want to play, a lot.
Of course I prefer to play with my Codex in hand with somewhat balanced rules for everyone, but if I have to play half a year casually to learn and lose, I don't care. I've picked an army that I really like, so if I have to be painting and just playing incursions with a friend it's fine for me.

The Bloody Sails
 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




Tycho wrote:
That said, remember, Command Phase is the first thing that happens. If you score on your command phase, then move off the objective, you WON'T score it your next turn. You need 10 points for three rounds and 15 points for one round to max them. On most maps, even from your deployment zone, you should be able to snag 2 objectives for 10 points per-turn and then hopefully get a 15 on your breakout. There are some maps where you need 3 for 10 and those will hurt more if you're trapped, but those are less than half the missions.


That's the problem. Score in my Command phase. Leave a less offensively capable (but tough) unit still chilling on the objective, send the more high powered one out to block the opponent. It's especially rough if you hit it just right on the last turn. There's not a lot the other player can do to defend it. Particularly if "Player 1" was already snowballing to begin with.

It's not that it's impossible if you go second, but it often does just feel like a 3-5 turn Alpha strike VS a turn 1 Alpha. Plus, the kind of army that does really well at going first, also helps you of you go second, so my fear is we will see a very homogenous build style in 9th. Ironically, Marine vs Marine games play pretty well! lol We've also found that movement doesn't mean as much as we had hoped it would. It often seems less about careful maneuvering, and more about just rushing to the objective. That said, I DO think they did a good job of making it so that your timing is important. It's not all negative, but for us, it's also not *quite* working. But again, who knows. It's just enough of an irritant that we're just going to play 8th a while longer, so no big deal.

Hopefully, when 9th really gets rolling, we'll see either fixes for some of the problems, or at least see solutions in the game play. Could easily just be the way my group plays, but yeah - a LOT of groups appear to be running into the same thing.


Most high powered units aren't ObSec though. One model can hold the objective against them.

You do need to play this edition really different. Durable, obsec is really important. It is why Custodes are doing well. You absolutely need lots of Dense and Obscuring terrain.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Our games have been less about a single unit capturing a strategic objective and more about portions of armies vying for control of that battlefield area. It gets more interesting with terrain laid out to restrict, obstruct, or otherwise hinder clearly targeting the area with long-range units. You don't have to totally block LOS, but -1 to hit makes a difference. Leaving a table with inconsequential terrain in relation to the objectives is probably where a good portion of problems come into play. You just create forced deployment positions and clear lanes that simplifies the game into who can shoot better again.

Not saying it is all wrong, just trying to highlight some of the differences that seem to be causing friction and reluctance in the community. The changes have been pretty big and jarring, i totally understand shutting it down.


The problem for my group is that the terrain layout you mention is what we're using - it just makes it that much easier for player 1 to get that extra advantage from the way the objectives are scored (because you can't shoot me off of them turn 1, and on subsequent turns, I can leave fewer units defending them since again, LoS tends to be blocked or obstructed). Part of the issue when this stuff gets brought up is that people automatically assume the groups running into this must surely be playing on planet bowling ball, but we aren't. If you have really fast units, and/or units that can fly, this terrain set up makes it even easier for them.

But at this point I'm harping on it so I'll leave it for now. Suffice it to say, these missions definitely have problems the way they're constructed, but it's entirely possible my group is playing in a way that exacerbates it. We've all played a very long time so we're perfectly used to changing with the edition. This edition just feels ... odd.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 16:53:35


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




Tycho wrote:
Our games have been less about a single unit capturing a strategic objective and more about portions of armies vying for control of that battlefield area. It gets more interesting with terrain laid out to restrict, obstruct, or otherwise hinder clearly targeting the area with long-range units. You don't have to totally block LOS, but -1 to hit makes a difference. Leaving a table with inconsequential terrain in relation to the objectives is probably where a good portion of problems come into play. You just create forced deployment positions and clear lanes that simplifies the game into who can shoot better again.

Not saying it is all wrong, just trying to highlight some of the differences that seem to be causing friction and reluctance in the community. The changes have been pretty big and jarring, i totally understand shutting it down.


The problem for my group is that the terrain layout you mention is what we're using - it just makes it that much easier for player 1 to get that extra advantage from the way the objectives are scored (because you can't shoot me off of them turn 1, and on subsequent turns, I can leave fewer units defending them since again, LoS tends to be blocked or obstructed). Part of the issue when this stuff gets brought up is that people automatically assume the groups running into this must surely be playing on planet bowling ball, but we aren't. If you have really fast units, and/or units that can fly, this terrain set up makes it even easier for them.

But at this point I'm harping on it so I'll leave it for now. Suffice it to say, these missions definitely have problems the way they're constructed, but it's entirely possible my group is playing in a way that exacerbates it. We've all played a very long time so we're perfectly used to changing with the edition. This edition just feels ... odd.



Terrain should be exposing at least 4 of the center objectives. You might need to change some of your Obscuring to Dense.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Mississippi

Definitely not feeling the need to play until I get a new Codex. Once the new Marines dex becomes official I feel like auto losses to Marines will be the norm at least until the other factions get to catch up.

When and if that happens.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Right now, with no venues to play at due to the ongoing pandemic and local restrictions on events and business operations, the core rules still obviously being a work in progress, a metagame that GW appears to be wanting to reboot entirely but only through codex releases over time in a disjointed fashion instead of an Index form that will clearly and inevitably leave many factions in the dust for a while, nonexistent support for my FW DKoK, I see very little reason to pick up and learn 9E yet, and thus 40k as a whole is "on hold" for me.

I've played a few solo home-games of 8th in recent months, and will be trying out the (mostly metal) Grey Knight army I've been slowly working on (probably since the tail end of 5E to be honest, almost have it finished) shortly under those rules, but that's about it.

I've been getting back into Heavy Gear in a big way instead recently.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 17:13:10


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Most high powered units aren't ObSec though. One model can hold the objective against them.

You do need to play this edition really different. Durable, obsec is really important. It is why Custodes are doing well. You absolutely need lots of Dense and Obscuring terrain.


And most obsec units are paper thin. It's remarkably easy to shift them, or to get tougher obsec units in front of them to contest.

Terrain should be exposing at least 4 of the center objectives. You might need to change some of your Obscuring to Dense.


Been there, done that, bought the shirt. lol

a metagame that GW appears to be wanting to reboot entirely but only through codex releases over time in a disjointed fashion


I think this is a big part of it TBH. Marines or Mechanicus get to go first - good night. The way this appears to be shaking out, if your book doesn't work well with 9th, you'll be hurting even more than usual, and for an indeterminate period of time until your book gets released. Then, you just have to hope that GW either stuck with the design philosophy for all the books, OR hope that, if your book changes the direction, that it's changed in a favorable direction.

I know the index books had their issues, but NOT having them is really highlighting a lot of issues right now. I think we'll be seeing even more of those once people are really able to play again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 17:20:54


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




Tycho wrote:
Most high powered units aren't ObSec though. One model can hold the objective against them.

You do need to play this edition really different. Durable, obsec is really important. It is why Custodes are doing well. You absolutely need lots of Dense and Obscuring terrain.


And most obsec units are paper thin. It's remarkably easy to shift them, or to get tougher obsec units in front of them to contest.

Terrain should be exposing at least 4 of the center objectives. You might need to change some of your Obscuring to Dense.


Been there, done that, bought the shirt. lol

a metagame that GW appears to be wanting to reboot entirely but only through codex releases over time in a disjointed fashion


I think this is a big part of it TBH. Marines or Mechanicus get to go first - good night. The way this appears to be shaking out, if your book doesn't work well with 9th, you'll be hurting even more than usual, and for an indeterminate period of time until your book gets released. Then, you just have to hope that GW either stuck with the design philosophy for all the books, OR hope that, if your book changes the direction, that it's changed in a favorable direction.

I know the index books had their issues, but NOT having them is really highlighting a lot of issues right now. I think we'll be seeing even more of those once people are really able to play again.


It would help to know your army and the army you are complaining of.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Audustum wrote:
I don't think that trait let's him re-deploy within 9" of your deployment zone so those were some lucky charges if he really was that far back.


You're forgetting that they're not deep striking, they're redeploying before the game starts. That means if they get the first turn, they get their regular 6" move, shoot, and then charge. I suppose if I really crammed my models into the rear I could stay away from the edge of my deployment zone- but even if I was 4" back, that's still only a 7" charge they need to make, and it hampers me further in getting out of my deployment.

And more importantly, they don't have to succeed at the charges or even go first. It's enough to get troops in the way of objectives, or on objectives, or in lanes between terrain that monsters/vehicles need to traverse.

Audustum wrote:
That said, remember, Command Phase is the first thing that happens. If you score on your command phase, then move off the objective, you WON'T score it your next turn. You need 10 points for three rounds and 15 points for one round to max them. On most maps, even from your deployment zone, you should be able to snag 2 objectives for 10 points per-turn and then hopefully get a 15 on your breakout. There are some maps where you need 3 for 10 and those will hurt more if you're trapped, but those are less than half the missions.


Most missions don't have two objectives in your deployment zone. Every turn that you spend cooped up with just a single objective while the opponent controls the midfield is 5VP for you, 15VP for your opponent. After two turns like this it is very difficult to come back.

The problem is just that there's not a lot of counterplay. Being able to start on the objective is a massive advantage, and short of countering with your own infiltrators (if your army even has them), you can't prevent it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 17:36:13


   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




It would help to know your army and the army you are complaining of.


It doesn't really matter for us as we are happy to play 8th until this all gets sorted, but if you look around, a LOT of people (including som eplay testers) are saying the same.

Our group is a bit odd. We're in an area that's not been hit too hard so we can garage hammer, and there's about 20 of us. We figured it's not cool to have more than 3 or 4 people in a garage at once (social distancing obviously), so we've split into smaller localized groups. So there's about 5 groups of 4 that have each played 30+ games. Weirdly, the pandemic has allowed us to play MORE than usual. lol

The only armies you won't see much of in that group are 'Nids, DE, and Necrons (although I may revive my old 'cron army if the dex pans out).

We've run through a LOT of builds, but, like many others, have seen the power of transports, so currently, the more successful builds have a lot of fast moving transports. We actually find leaving the terrain more open gives player 2 a slightly better experience just because they can start the attrition process sooner. What we like is that it seems like a combined arms approach is back, which is good (especially if you do go second - having a heavily skewed list can really penalize you). There are just too many other problems for us to want to deal with atm.

Like I said, not trying to say the sky is falling and that it's all doom and gloom, but yeah, for us, 9th is off to a bad start, and my money is on it getting worse before it gets better. Especially since there are so many variables now - it's going to take a while to work through, and honestly, I'm pretty sure we've found some little time bombs that just haven't gone off yet (or that will be inconsequential once the army books are finally out), so yeah - 8th it is for now.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




 catbarf wrote:
Audustum wrote:
I don't think that trait let's him re-deploy within 9" of your deployment zone so those were some lucky charges if he really was that far back.


You're forgetting that they're not deep striking, they're redeploying before the game starts. That means if they get the first turn, they get their regular 6" move, shoot, and then charge. I suppose if I really crammed my models into the rear I could stay away from the edge of my deployment zone- but even if I was 4" back, that's still only a 7" charge they need to make, and it hampers me further in getting out of my deployment.

And more importantly, they don't have to succeed at the charges or even go first. It's enough to get troops in the way of objectives, or on objectives, or in lanes between terrain that monsters/vehicles need to traverse.

Audustum wrote:
That said, remember, Command Phase is the first thing that happens. If you score on your command phase, then move off the objective, you WON'T score it your next turn. You need 10 points for three rounds and 15 points for one round to max them. On most maps, even from your deployment zone, you should be able to snag 2 objectives for 10 points per-turn and then hopefully get a 15 on your breakout. There are some maps where you need 3 for 10 and those will hurt more if you're trapped, but those are less than half the missions.


Most missions don't have two objectives in your deployment zone. Every turn that you spend cooped up with just a single objective while the opponent controls the midfield is 5VP for you, 15VP for your opponent. After two turns like this it is very difficult to come back.

The problem is just that there's not a lot of counterplay. Being able to start on the objective is a massive advantage, and short of countering with your own infiltrators (if your army even has them), you can't prevent it.


This is just not accurate. I play Custodes. When my opponent starts on the objective or tries to be close to my deployment zone, I just go forward and engage it.

But yes, they're still 3" out from your deployment after a 6" Move. That should give you plenty to avoid being charged if you want too, especially with Difficult Terrain giving a -2 to Move and to Charge.

The counterplay is that your opponent is gambling on only a 50% chance of going first with that kind of aggressive deployment and you should easily shoot or charge him off in retaliation. He loses important pieces in this and has a harder time getting secondaries. There is a fair amount to do here.

It sounds more like your list is just not effective at dealing damage and it may be something you need to revisit with a critical eye in design.

Also remember primary is capped at 45. More than one 15 is effective overkill unless you have a 5 in there somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote:
It would help to know your army and the army you are complaining of.


It doesn't really matter for us as we are happy to play 8th until this all gets sorted, but if you look around, a LOT of people (including som eplay testers) are saying the same.

Our group is a bit odd. We're in an area that's not been hit too hard so we can garage hammer, and there's about 20 of us. We figured it's not cool to have more than 3 or 4 people in a garage at once (social distancing obviously), so we've split into smaller localized groups. So there's about 5 groups of 4 that have each played 30+ games. Weirdly, the pandemic has allowed us to play MORE than usual. lol

The only armies you won't see much of in that group are 'Nids, DE, and Necrons (although I may revive my old 'cron army if the dex pans out).

We've run through a LOT of builds, but, like many others, have seen the power of transports, so currently, the more successful builds have a lot of fast moving transports. We actually find leaving the terrain more open gives player 2 a slightly better experience just because they can start the attrition process sooner. What we like is that it seems like a combined arms approach is back, which is good (especially if you do go second - having a heavily skewed list can really penalize you). There are just too many other problems for us to want to deal with atm.

Like I said, not trying to say the sky is falling and that it's all doom and gloom, but yeah, for us, 9th is off to a bad start, and my money is on it getting worse before it gets better. Especially since there are so many variables now - it's going to take a while to work through, and honestly, I'm pretty sure we've found some little time bombs that just haven't gone off yet (or that will be inconsequential once the army books are finally out), so yeah - 8th it is for now.


Are you sure your faction isn't just weak?

I am just mostly baffled because your experience is kind of the opposite of what the tournament scene is developing. Space Marines are good, but Harlequins, Dark Eldar, Custodes and Death Guard are considered just as high tier. Except for Nurglings it's not about infiltration, it's about putting durable bodies down except for Harlies.

An example of the staple DG list (two detachments) is like 3x8 Nurglings, 3 PBC's, a DP and a little flex room from there. Custodes it's a bunch of Sword+Board guys and two terminator squads with one or two Telemons for ranged support. Harlies are haywire vehicle spam, solitaires, e.t.c. The idea is to be too hard to shift or too strong to be resisted. Going first isn't really conferring an advantage (I've won more games going second I think).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/18 18:21:21


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The continuation of IGOUGO, the gak wounding chart (which at least they might experiment with hence W2 Marines everywhere), and quite frankly the exhausting environment of COVID make me not enthused.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




I am just mostly baffled because your experience is kind of the opposite of what the tournament scene is developing. Space Marines are good, but Harlequins, Dark Eldar, Custodes and Death Guard are considered just as high tier. Except for Nurglings it's not about infiltration, it's about putting durable bodies down except for Harlies.


We've had what? one tournament? Two? And based on a podcast I listened to recently, it sounds like one of them actually tweaked some things in the missions so it wasn't a straight up 9th ed mission style ...

Anyway, no, my factions are DG and Mechanicus, Marines and Tsons (although mainly the first two - I shelved the Marines a few months ago and my Tsons are pretty experimental right now) that's how I know how devastating it is when they go first.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




Tycho wrote:
I am just mostly baffled because your experience is kind of the opposite of what the tournament scene is developing. Space Marines are good, but Harlequins, Dark Eldar, Custodes and Death Guard are considered just as high tier. Except for Nurglings it's not about infiltration, it's about putting durable bodies down except for Harlies.


We've had what? one tournament? Two? And based on a podcast I listened to recently, it sounds like one of them actually tweaked some things in the missions so it wasn't a straight up 9th ed mission style ...

Anyway, no, my factions are DG and Mechanicus, Marines and Tsons (although mainly the first two - I shelved the Marines a few months ago and my Tsons are pretty experimental right now) that's how I know how devastating it is when they go first.


It depends what you define as data. There's been more than 2 tournaments, 4-5 of the traditional GT caliber I think, a plethora of matches/events on Tabletop Simulator and guys like Nanavati and Siegler have been doing matches against each other and discussing what's good, what's bad, based on those.

It's not as much as we did have, but it's not nothing. It doesn't comport with this from what I can tell either.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Audustum wrote:
This is just not accurate. I play Custodes. When my opponent starts on the objective or tries to be close to my deployment zone, I just go forward and engage it.

But yes, they're still 3" out from your deployment after a 6" Move. That should give you plenty to avoid being charged if you want too, especially with Difficult Terrain giving a -2 to Move and to Charge.


Yes, that's 3" out from my deployment zone. How far back am I supposed to deploy my army? Not everyone has the luxury of a 2000pt army being under 20 models; my deployment zone is cramped as it is and I don't even play a particularly horde build. Even if I can start 6" back, I'm hamstringing myself by keeping my entire army even farther from the objectives. You're also assuming that I can deploy my army behind cover to reduce the risk of a turn 1 charge, despite the fact that I need to get out of my deployment zone to actually play the objectives.

You cannot simultaneously argue 'you can beat Primaris, just play the objectives' and also 'you can beat Primaris, just turtle up in your deployment zone as far back as possible behind cover'.

I did more damage to his list than he did to mine. Damage output is not the problem. The problem is that I lost a whole turn's worth of movement, allowing the rest of his army to push up and join the ones already occupying all the midfield objectives, and that put me on a defensive footing for the remainder of the game.

Lastly, and most importantly:

Audustum wrote:
The counterplay is that your opponent is gambling on only a 50% chance of going first with that kind of aggressive deployment and you should easily shoot or charge him off in retaliation. He loses important pieces in this and has a harder time getting secondaries. There is a fair amount to do here.


You seem to have missed where I said that the key is a warlord trait that allows voluntary redeployment after the roll-off for first turn. If I won the first turn, he would have redeployed to put his Incursors on the objectives rather than deployed so aggressively. There is no gamble; either he gets an aggressive deployment and the first turn, or a more conservative deployment and going second.

Even if he didn't have that option, 'hope you win the coin flip, otherwise GG' isn't counterplay.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/18 18:47:38


   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






Kinda hard to stay excited for competitive/matchmaking games when vanilla marines have had 3 codices over the last 4 years and each time my armies are put on the "just wait til your turn" backburner. That being said, I like the missions better so I'm looking forward to games once balance starts to settle. Early 8th sucked in the exact same way. Now is a very good time for painting and ebay hunting.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly, the only thing affecting my attitude toward 9th (and late 8th if we're being honest) is the instability/uncertainty of everything that's going on.

The new space marine statlines feel unhinged. And i don't mean that in the "omgwtfsoOPaaaargh" sense anymore, really, I had that phase and I'm done with it.

I mean they don't seem at all consistent. Weapons seem to be getting stat changes completely randomly. The invictor is getting a heavy bolter with 1 shot. "what the hell does a heavy stubber DO now" is totally up in the air. There are three different statlines shown for autocannons, and a possible...I think SIX for various weapons that all fit the description of "Sword."


They're doing the Age of Sigmar thing to 40k here.
You saw a preview of it with all the unique Primaris guns. It'll get worse.
You think six variations of "sword" are bad here? AoS would make your head explode.
In AoS every unit has named weapons. So there's as many types of "swords" as there are different units that use swords. Or spears (on top of any special abilities, spears generally have a 2" melee range. But not always). Or lances. Or bows. Or....
Hell, even shields don't have a single common ability (adding to save #s - you might argue that this is already factored into the base units stat, but there's units where that doesn't seem to be the case). Instead? Some increase the save in melee (my Ungor shields), others only help against ranged. Some allow rerolls, some do effect x, others Y....
And every single weapon/attack has a specific "name".
God how I miss the generic weapon categories of the WHFB days. If I have to put up with a different type of HB on each different unit that could wield one....


the_scotsman wrote:
Combine that with what feels like near-daily FAQs, changes, errata, model deletions, model undeletions, changes to the PA books that, in most cases, I can count on a single hand the games I've been able to actually play with their contents, I just have absolutely no solid ground on which to stand with 40k's rules.


You could do what my circle does. We quickly grew tired of this crap in 8th. So we largely just stopped paying attention to it other than pts changes in CA.
If there was something SO terrible? WE implemented a change that satisfied our group.
The only time any of us brushed up on the official stuff of the moment was if we played some games at the not-quite-local-shop, or in my case each year before I went to GenCon (may/may not play some 40k, but best if ready to).
And here since March 2020+? There's only a very small circle of us that're getting together for games. So it really doesn't matter to us what GW says moment to moment or how other groups deal with it. Maybe come 2021

the_scotsman wrote:
As a result, I'm much less inclined to be excited about building up rule theory for my collection, and less likely to be interested in trying out rules. People say Crusade is fun - I haven't bothered to try it, because GW has basically said this is the Early-Alpha edition and there's gonna be new crusade junk added in every codex.


Set yourself up a small sealed group & as a group decide wich rules you want to apply. Within my group the general idea atm is that we won't add Codex Crusade rules to the mix until all factions in the Crusade have a new codex. Though we are open to maybe revising that as we get a look at the Codex specific stuff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 19:14:42


 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




The idea is to be too hard to shift or too strong to be resisted. Going first isn't really conferring an advantage (I've won more games going second I think).


Says the Custodes player

I'm not saying it's impossible. Obviously it's possible, but I'm willing to bet that this ends up being one of those editions where there's three kinds of missions -

1. The book/GT Packet missions that some people use
2. The ITC missions that most people use
3. Tertiary mission packs at other assorted events

I'm willing to bet a lot on it that the GW missions get FAQ'd a good bit once this really gets rolling. I don't think it would take much and there's already been at least on tournament that did it successfully. I'm just saying, we aren't interested in dealing w/any of it until it ALL settles. Which likely won't be until next Spring after at least more than just 'crons and Marines have books and there's (hopefully) more wide-spread data that's been collected, because it's not JUST the missions.

One of the podcasts we listen to while playing was recently talking about how they haven't covered GSC much because "GSC hasn't really changed". Our poor GSC player about went cross eyed. GSC and Tau are two armies that are really up against it in this edition and won't likely have an answer until their books release. There's just a LOT of problems this launch caused that we don't feel like dealing with. We gave it a pretty good shot, but when you're staring down the barrel of a "day 2 FAQ" that was needed to fix the "Day 1 FAQ" and a lot of it is stuff that never should have made it to print to begin with ... well, you get tired of that after a bit. lol

I've played since RT - I applaud the effort they've made in updating the rules regularly, and of course no game is perfect and you will always need fixes, but at some point, they need to get better at actually writing the rules in the first place. So it's become like complex electronics - my group gave the beta release a shot and has elected to NOT be early adapters.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 19:44:46


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Well, I can't actually play so I'm excited for anything really.

To the point, I think the core rule changes for 9th are really exciting and I'm looking forward to play. The upcoming statisical changes look interesting, and I'd rather they be here now, but they just shake up army composition. The announced changes have dulled my interest in making changes to my army for 9th edition, but I'm excited to play it with what I've got in the meantime.
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Not really. I wasn't overly keen on my last few games of 8th or my first of 9th. On top of that it looks like its going to be Marine dominated until the other books get up to speed so yeah, not particularly excited.


 
   
Made in us
Lead-Footed Trukkboy Driver





I've played a few games of 9th, mostly Orks vs daemons, then Orks vs chaos engines (mauler fiends, blood slaughterers, etc.). Both were fun and competitive. I'd suggest just being more selective of which armies you play against and/or which you use. Its going to be a painful transition for some armies, there is no doubt about it.

Active armies, still collecting and painting First and greatest love - Orks, Orks, and more Orks largest pile of shame, so many tanks unassembled most complete and painted beautiful models, couldn't resist the swarm will consume all
Armies in disrepair: nothing new since 5th edition oh how I want to revive, but mostly old fantasy demons and some glorious Soul Grinders in need of love 
   
Made in us
Bounding Ultramarine Assault Trooper





I am completely new to the hobby but the inclusion of the smaller playing area and the new indomitus/command boxes helped finally make the leap.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 catbarf wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
Empirical statement: in my loss, my opponent killed maybe 200 points of my 1250 point list. No matter how killy or advantaged you may think Primaris are... if they cannot play the mission, you have a great chance at winning. It may cost you feeding your entire army to him over 3-4 turns, but as long as you're scoring and he is not... it doesn't matter if you're wiped out, you will score the tactical win.


I'm finding that to be overly optimistic, because Primaris can play to the mission and still be effective.

As a recent example, I lost a game to Space Wolves over the weekend, using a Kraken Tyranid army that normally does great on playing to the mission exactly as you describe. He won the roll-off for first turn, then used a Warlord trait to redeploy three Phobos units directly in front of my deployment zone, and performed a turn 1 charge that boxed me into my deployment while he grabbed over half of the objectives and moved Thunderwolves up for a T2 charge. I eventually managed to break out and inflict more damage on him than he did on me, but there was no recovering from his lead on objectives.

There isn't a single ability that allows RE deployment outside of the DZ brother. I think you got hornswaggled! Lol
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





dominuschao wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
Empirical statement: in my loss, my opponent killed maybe 200 points of my 1250 point list. No matter how killy or advantaged you may think Primaris are... if they cannot play the mission, you have a great chance at winning. It may cost you feeding your entire army to him over 3-4 turns, but as long as you're scoring and he is not... it doesn't matter if you're wiped out, you will score the tactical win.


I'm finding that to be overly optimistic, because Primaris can play to the mission and still be effective.

As a recent example, I lost a game to Space Wolves over the weekend, using a Kraken Tyranid army that normally does great on playing to the mission exactly as you describe. He won the roll-off for first turn, then used a Warlord trait to redeploy three Phobos units directly in front of my deployment zone, and performed a turn 1 charge that boxed me into my deployment while he grabbed over half of the objectives and moved Thunderwolves up for a T2 charge. I eventually managed to break out and inflict more damage on him than he did on me, but there was no recovering from his lead on objectives.

There isn't a single ability that allows RE deployment outside of the DZ brother. I think you got hornswaggled! Lol


Nah - Lord of Deceit allows it. The PHOBOS units can then deploy anywhere 9" away from enemy DZ/models.

Thing is it is super easy to spot. Deploying an inch back from the DZ line or having appropriate scouts/infitrators/chaff of your own stops it dead. His opponent took advantage of bad deployment.

(Provided you get an army list before the game and they tell you what the trait does)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/24 05:10:59


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:

Nah - Lord of Deceit allows it. The PHOBOS units can then deploy anywhere 9" away from enemy DZ/models.

Thing is it is super easy to spot. Deploying an inch back from the DZ line or having appropriate scouts/infitrators/chaff of your own stops it dead. His opponent took advantage of bad deployment.

(Provided you get an army list before the game and they tell you what the trait does)


You mind explaining why them starting the game 10 inches away instead of 9 makes the slightly difference.

You turned a 4 inch charge turn 1 into a 5 inch charge that's still plenty reliable, though in all honesty I think GW really needs to take long hard look at phobos units in 9th as they seem to be extremely abusable. Thier is very much too much unfun uninteractive playstyles were deepstike become impossible. Taking objectives without some ability to bypass the invictor bumrush is impossible. They might not be greatest balanced lists but they are toxic as feth.

Though that said even if they fail the charge being able to moveblock someone in their deployment zone your killing their ability to score/play the game anyway.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/24 06:11:34


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Because no one knows who goes first. Realistically your sacrificial units are back just a tiny bit to gamble on a failure and their units are not out in the open based on the risk of going second. If they have ruins 9" out then you damn well better plan ahead.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Because no one knows who goes first. Realistically your sacrificial units are back just a tiny bit to gamble on a failure and their units are not out in the open based on the risk of going second. If they have ruins 9" out then you damn well better plan ahead.

Which is part of the issue with being able to redeploy units that can sdeploy wherever they like. Like phobos units.

Also even if you go first being unable to move out of your deployment zone for the cost of say 10 scouts or such is still a very low cost for the ability to prevent you contesting any objectives turn 1 and havibg to try and shoot your opponent off all of them, obsec infiltration is severely undercosted so far in 9th.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Daedalus81 wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
Empirical statement: in my loss, my opponent killed maybe 200 points of my 1250 point list. No matter how killy or advantaged you may think Primaris are... if they cannot play the mission, you have a great chance at winning. It may cost you feeding your entire army to him over 3-4 turns, but as long as you're scoring and he is not... it doesn't matter if you're wiped out, you will score the tactical win.


I'm finding that to be overly optimistic, because Primaris can play to the mission and still be effective.

As a recent example, I lost a game to Space Wolves over the weekend, using a Kraken Tyranid army that normally does great on playing to the mission exactly as you describe. He won the roll-off for first turn, then used a Warlord trait to redeploy three Phobos units directly in front of my deployment zone, and performed a turn 1 charge that boxed me into my deployment while he grabbed over half of the objectives and moved Thunderwolves up for a T2 charge. I eventually managed to break out and inflict more damage on him than he did on me, but there was no recovering from his lead on objectives.

There isn't a single ability that allows RE deployment outside of the DZ brother. I think you got hornswaggled! Lol


Nah - Lord of Deceit allows it. The PHOBOS units can then deploy anywhere 9" away from enemy DZ/models.

Thing is it is super easy to spot. Deploying an inch back from the DZ line or having appropriate scouts/infitrators/chaff of your own stops it dead. His opponent took advantage of bad deployment.

(Provided you get an army list before the game and they tell you what the trait does)


Hmm I went to reference the FAQ which limited all these types of abilities to within their own DZ but apparantly those don't exist anymore. So yea my bad now theres several abilities that can do this again. At least until another faq clears it up or doesn't.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: