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.

Where do you know for certain they're troops again? Is it likely? Yes. But you don't know that yet, if I'm not mistaken. Do you know how much they cost? Do you know if D2 weapons will go down in price or D3 becoming more common in the future?

the index page of the codex was leaked, they are between other options which are troops. GW have a specific way of listing their options, the only way for them to not be troops, is if there was a gigantic miss print durning the making of the codex. Possible with GW in charge, but that is like saying 2021 tournament seson is going to be fixed by a metor strike.

Nurglitch wrote:
Seems odd for GW to do what their less-successful competitors are doing, rather than following their own recipe for success.

You describe GW as successful compared to Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, Cool mini or Not as an indication GW is doing something right without acknowledging that GW has been making warhammer since the 80's most other companies have not that kind of history. You also seem to believe that just because Games Workshop is the market leader they can't improve? That competitors can't be doing something better than GW?

I mean the reason I tried Infinity and Warmachine was because I was fed up with GW at the time.



By your logic no market leader should ever take inspiration from less successful competitors.. *looks at ios 14 finally adding home screen widgets after android has been doing it for decades

So bear with me I have not played a game in years, I enjoy the hobby. Although I could try and play a mach using 5th edition rules with some folks. or try for 8th ed. As I have a copy of both and codex for them orks. In sight try an follow the golden rule. Have fun

Ice_can wrote:

So now it's not wait and see it's you can't complain about a faction until you have it's new 9th edition codex in your hands.
So eradicators rules in indomitous being broken. Nope not allowed to say that as no 9th edition codex out yet.

Saying that T5 3W troops rendering the common D2 weapons no no longer working against marines efficently, nope can't say that either

The new weapon stats which in increasing the damage output or a number of weapons will make vehicals weaker, oh wait I need to wait for the codex silly me.

Or you could maybe except that some things are so blindingly obvious and obnoxious to play against currently it's fair for people to complain.

Here's the thing.... You are again making assumptions without complete information and without having played against these units. Yes, HI make D2 less reliable. Does it break the game? That's an assumption. Yes, vehicles could take more damage. Does it mean there are no mitigating factors? That's an assumption. Yes, Eradicators can be obnoxious. Does that mean marines are unstoppable? That's an assumption.

I'm trying very much to make this not sound insulting, but I will end up using strong language. It isn't that I dislike anyone here. I'm just pretty much over the posts insulting the intelligence of others by pretending goal posts are getting moved when they don't want to appreciate the methodology of working with all the facts.

The Nids I mentioned (supposedly the worst army in the game) --

Went second versus Salamanders. Won 83 to 58.
Went second versus Necrons. Won 78 to 47.
Went second versus Iron Hands. Won 87 to 52.

So maybe he's just running down the clock. Maybe he's just lucky. Maybe there's only one list Nids can play. According to Dakka it is the worst mission pack and going first has huge advantages.

Let's look at the leaderboard:



Just look at that marine dominance, right? The mission pack does not deviate one bit from the standard rules.

Round 3 highest scores --



Everyone above went first except GK. This was mission #13, which according to Goonhammer only has a 53% advantage for going first (based on limited data).



It just seems a lot of people sit here like spinsters having never played games, but content to gossip and clutch pearls - and I apologize for the sexist imagery there. It is likely 90% of you haven't even had a chance to use your PA books.

Are marines going to tend to win more than other armies? Yes. Did marines get a ton of stuff? Sure. But if this CORE thing is rolling out and it affects marines most doesn't it make sense to tag all the marine books now?

Could the marine book be a mess? Absolutely. I have no idea if Aggressors will be CORE. Or if that bunker will be nuts. Or if the turrets will be too cheap. And i'll be right here saying if its a mess - AFTER I play against it, because I want a more balanced game. And i'll accept information from people who disagree with me. I was the one who called for a boycott over GSC. I was wrong. Other people talked me out of it.

Problem is the common anti-marine / anti-GW celebrities won't be talked out of anything. Sure, Eradicators are rough. But the CORE change is a step in the right direction. Both things can be true without needing to post how awful you think GW is, or claiming they can't do basic math, or that Matt Ward and Gav Thorpe personally robbed you, or any other inane posts people make. Posts that more and more seem to be not based on experience.

And ultimately, I think, people do it not because they want a better game, but because they feel best when tearing down something that doesn't get to fight back. We're not at opposite ends through disagreement about marines. We're at opposite ends through disagreement about life.

bfdhud wrote:
You describe GW as successful compared to Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, Cool mini or Not as an indication GW is doing something right without acknowledging that GW has been making warhammer since the 80's most other companies have not that kind of history. You also seem to believe that just because Games Workshop is the market leader they can't improve? That competitors can't be doing something better than GW?
I mean the reason I tried Infinity and Warmachine was because I was fed up with GW at the time.
By your logic no market leader should ever take inspiration from less successful competitors.. *looks at ios 14 finally adding home screen widgets after android has been doing it for decades

I fully agree with your point - GW can always do better. Most companies can.

I want to point out, though, there are very few companies out there that you can accurately compare GW to, because there are very few that have been in the hobby business for as long as they have.
And when you look at their practices compared to the one other comparable company I can think of - Wizards of the Coast, who purposely play balance games to encourage the rise and fall of printed pieces of fancy card gaining or losing value in the hundreds of dollars - GW don't come out looking too bad.
The only other examples I could possibly think of went bust years ago - for example, TSR.

GW has improved. It's been basically all uphill since they turfed Kirby; they produce more games, better products, have more community engagement, etc. I mean, much of that is learning from their own mistakes. But the fact is that they have been in business for a surprisingly long time. Maybe they're doing a few things right too, and they don't have much incentive to pay attention to less successful companies.

A thread telling people to calm down will inevitably do the opposite and likely end up getting locked down

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

So now it's not wait and see it's you can't complain about a faction until you have it's new 9th edition codex in your hands.
So eradicators rules in indomitous being broken. Nope not allowed to say that as no 9th edition codex out yet.

Saying that T5 3W troops rendering the common D2 weapons no no longer working against marines efficently, nope can't say that either

The new weapon stats which in increasing the damage output or a number of weapons will make vehicals weaker, oh wait I need to wait for the codex silly me.

Or you could maybe except that some things are so blindingly obvious and obnoxious to play against currently it's fair for people to complain.

Here's the thing.... You are again making assumptions without complete information and without having played against these units. Yes, HI make D2 less reliable. Does it break the game? That's an assumption. Yes, vehicles could take more damage. Does it mean there are no mitigating factors? That's an assumption. Yes, Eradicators can be obnoxious. Does that mean marines are unstoppable? That's an assumption.

I'm trying very much to make this not sound insulting, but I will end up using strong language. It isn't that I dislike anyone here. I'm just pretty much over the posts insulting the intelligence of others by pretending goal posts are getting moved when they don't want to appreciate the methodology of working with all the facts.

The Nids I mentioned (supposedly the worst army in the game) --

Went second versus Salamanders. Won 83 to 58.
Went second versus Necrons. Won 78 to 47.
Went second versus Iron Hands. Won 87 to 52.

So maybe he's just running down the clock. Maybe he's just lucky. Maybe there's only one list Nids can play. According to Dakka it is the worst mission pack and going first has huge advantages.

Let's look at the leaderboard:

Spoiler:

#1 - GUO, Slimux, LoC, Bloodletters, BoN, Nurglings, Flamers
#2 - IF - 6 Eradicators, TFC, Stormtalon, Invictors, Impulsors, Grav pod
#3 - AM - Breachers, Disintegrators, Serverys Raiders, Steryilyzors
#4 - Nid horde
#5 - GK - GMDKs, Terminators, Strikes, Ven Dreads
#6 - SW
#7 - Magnus
#8 - BA
#9 - DA & SW
#10 - AM

Just look at that marine dominance, right? The mission pack does not deviate one bit from the standard rules.

Round 3 highest scores --

Spoiler:

100 - Space Wolves with 3 Eradicators (models not units)
100 - Magnus & Daemon soup
98 - Harlies & CW
95 - DA & SW
95 - AM
92 - All Tzeentch Daemons
92 - GK - went second
90 - Triple disco lords, Noise Marines, Oblits, Heldrakes

Everyone above went first except GK. This was mission #13, which according to Goonhammer only has a 53% advantage for going first (based on limited data).



It just seems a lot of people sit here like spinsters having never played games, but content to gossip and clutch pearls - and I apologize for the sexist imagery there. It is likely 90% of you haven't even had a chance to use your PA books.

Are marines going to tend to win more than other armies? Yes. Did marines get a ton of stuff? Sure. But if this CORE thing is rolling out and it affects marines most doesn't it make sense to tag all the marine books now?

Could the marine book be a mess? Absolutely. I have no idea if Aggressors will be CORE. Or if that bunker will be nuts. Or if the turrets will be too cheap. And i'll be right here saying if its a mess - AFTER I play against it, because I want a more balanced game. And i'll accept information from people who disagree with me. I was the one who called for a boycott over GSC. I was wrong. Other people talked me out of it.

Problem is the common anti-marine / anti-GW celebrities won't be talked out of anything. Sure, Eradicators are rough. But the CORE change is a step in the right direction. Both things can be true without needing to post how awful you think GW is, or claiming they can't do basic math, or that Matt Ward and Gav Thorpe personally robbed you, or any other inane posts people make. Posts that more and more seem to be not based on experience.

And ultimately, I think, people do it not because they want a better game, but because they feel best when tearing down something that doesn't get to fight back. We're not at opposite ends through disagreement about marines. We're at opposite ends through disagreement about life.

I think the problem is using the phrase you need to wait and see became a kind of hijacked phrase during Marine 2.0 and supliment spam season towarss the end of 8th by a few posters who used it dishonestly as a response to any criticism of the game balance of codex 2.0.

Also yeah it probably does suck when it's your factions that's being hype marketed by GW and you want to discuss how excited you are about the new cool toy, but hype Marketing is trying to balance the backlash vrs the benifit of people posting about it for the company. GW dont care if your getting called a WAAC .
But Hype marketing is generally not the best idea for a community based activity, would their be way less salt if GW woukd be more honest or less inflammatory in the hype posts probably, but they're doing it deliberately.

Also while it sucks to be on the receiving end of internet hate, go play Tau or Knights for a few years and some posters will act like your a murderer.

 Super Ready wrote:

And when you look at their practices compared to the one other comparable company I can think of - Wizards of the Coast, who purposely play balance games to encourage the rise and fall of printed pieces of fancy card gaining or losing value in the hundreds of dollars - GW don't come out looking too bad.

Not sure that's an exactly fair comparison either because we don't know how WotC would be fairing without having been bought out by the third largest toy company in the world. Their markets styles are also very different.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
A thread telling people to calm down will inevitably do the opposite and likely end up getting locked down

Which is weird because a thread inviting people to turn it into a cesspit of whining and complaining about stuff almost seems encouraged/appreciated by comparison.

OP, I have no reason to think that you won't take the "wait and see" strategy at every point in 9e's lifetime, since GW releases rules piecemeal over time. It's a bad argument.

Remember when we couldn't judge 8th edition because we had to wait and see, and it would totally be fine and all the obvious problems would go away if we just waited long enough?

Remember when we couldn't judge 7th edition because we had to wait and see, and it would totally be fine and all the obvious problems would go away if we just waited long enough?

Remember when we couldn't judge 6th edition because we had to wait and see, and it would totally be fine and all the obvious problems would go away if we just waited long enough?

I'm seeing a pattern here...

JohnnyHell wrote:Rest of his salt aside, we do know Heavy Intercessors will be troops as we were expressly told on the announcement stream/WHC.

Ah, thank you! That's cleared up some planning issues I was having for my 6th company!

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
guys let's stop pretending the arguements are about 9th edition, 99% of the bitching here and certainly ALL the doom and gloom ahs been people saying hwo aweful space marines etc etc and their new codex isn't out yet.
So in short if you're complaining about space marines specificly,no you don't have all the fething info and if you claim to the contrary you eaither A: work for GW and are breaking your NDA. or B: Are lying.

So now it's not wait and see it's you can't complain about a faction until you have it's new 9th edition codex in your hands.
So eradicators rules in indomitous being broken. Nope not allowed to say that as no 9th edition codex out yet.

You're cool to say they're broken *right now*. But there's a lot of assumption flying around about what the new Codex and meta will be. And so many of those assumptions are simply based on unstable evidence.

So, unless you're explicitly talking about right here and now, complaints simply don't have direct evidence.

Saying that T5 3W troops rendering the common D2 weapons no no longer working against marines efficently, nope can't say that either

Where do you know for certain they're troops again? Is it likely? Yes. But you don't know that yet, if I'm not mistaken. Do you know how much they cost? Do you know if D2 weapons will go down in price or D3 becoming more common in the future?

The new weapon stats which in increasing the damage output or a number of weapons will make vehicals weaker, oh wait I need to wait for the codex silly me.

Hang on, you were just complaining about Damage not being high enough to deal with those T5 3W "Troops", but now you're saying damage output is higher! Which is it?

Or you could maybe except that some things are so blindingly obvious and obnoxious to play against currently it's fair for people to complain.

Blindingly obvious NOW, yes, but how long will "now" be?

Rest of his salt aside, we do know Heavy Intercessors will be troops as we were expressly told on the announcement stream/WHC.

maybe but we don't know the points cost. right now the heavy intercessor complaint basicly amounts to "Marines have a unit I can't effortlessly kill" marine players have done the math around the predicted price point and the over all consensus is that "they're useful but won't be replacing intercessors"

thing is we know some nerfs are coming to marines. notable nerfs coming up that we KNOW OF.

1: tweeks to chapter tactics (we know sallies are getting nerfed)
2: Limits on the number of captains per detachment
3: the "core" rule reducing the power of re-rolls.


these are all fairly big changes when taken together

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Remember when we couldn't judge 8th edition because we had to wait and see, and it would totally be fine and all the obvious problems would go away if we just waited long enough?

6th and 7th aren't even in the same ball field (or CEO). People can try to hand wave it as "good PR", but that's a garbage dodge not based on an assessment of the actual actions taken.

Remember when people disagreed about what made Castellans strong, but we got progressive nerfs for all angles?
Remember when marines 2.0 was too strong and they got nerfed at the very next big FAQ (that no one got to play)?
Remember when people said soup needs a penalty and then it got one?
Remember when people said marine rerolls were a problem and then a potential fix was revealed?
Remember people complaining about combo wombo and then we find out spells and strats are getting restricted , too?

I see a couple patterns. Ranging from willful ignorance and malcontents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
OP, I have no reason to think that you won't take the "wait and see" strategy at every point in 9e's lifetime, since GW releases rules piecemeal over time. It's a bad argument.

There's a distinct difference between the start of an edition where a global keyword can make all the difference - and the middle of an edition when we're waiting for more codexes, but the design space is known.

BrianDavion wrote:

maybe but we don't know the points cost. right now the heavy intercessor complaint basicly amounts to "Marines have a unit I can't effortlessly kill" marine players have done the math around the predicted price point and the over all consensus is that "they're useful but won't be replacing intercessors"

thing is we know some nerfs are coming to marines. notable nerfs coming up that we KNOW OF.

1: tweeks to chapter tactics (we know sallies are getting nerfed)
2: Limits on the number of captains per detachment
3: the "core" rule reducing the power of re-rolls.

these are all fairly big changes when taken together

Oh joy if you compair them to intercessors they are fine, funny how those same marine players ignore any comparisons to Kabalites, Guardians, Firewarriors.

It's not I can't effortlessly kill it's they are rediculously points inefficient as a target. Aka the best option would be to not shoot them appart from them being troops and hence obsec so you don't have that option.

3 wounds
1/3 failed saves
1/3 successful wound rolls

Thats 21 S4 or less Ap0 D1 hits, unfortunately what most none marine troops are stuck with.
Yes that May change at some TBD time in the future, but right now this is what a lot of non marine player's have to look forward to enjoying as a game unyill next yea.

1 it's a start but seriously the free AP was the more egregious issue especially stacked with additional AP on weapons

2 seriously out side of Imperial soup lists with the tripple BA slamquiniiuses how many Captains is in a normal marine list even in 8th it wasn't multiples

3 That's true just hopefully the current/new OP units don't end up with the core keyword.

Hecaton wrote:
OP, I have no reason to think that you won't take the "wait and see" strategy at every point in 9e's lifetime, since GW releases rules piecemeal over time. It's a bad argument.

You're right, and you don't have a reason. I guess all I can do is assure you that I will try to pass honest judgment when the first couple of codexes come out, when we no longer need to "wait and see", but i understand your point.
Thank you for everyone replying, it has been a great introduction to the forums and I'm glad to see everyone is very invested. Just please remember to be polite despite your investment, there are real people at the other side of those accounts. Thank you.

I don't like the wait and see mentality in part because not everyone has to wait. If GW released rules updates across all factions at the same time it could result in easier digestion of concepts and everyone playing the same game. It would not help the sheer number of books for a player (assuming you don't buy rules you don't personally use) but there are ways around that like binders and book sharing groups or digital.

Currently, I can only know what other players are capable of by spending hundreds of dollars on multiple books for their faction. Or by getting the rules through unofficial means (which gw will ignore as a possibility, short of cease notices) or memorizing by experience. I can only play on even footing with the select armies that are in the same codex run as myself, if the codices are balanced which isn't the norm here.

Now we have a new game wide points system all at once. That's great! There are whispers of that being a game of darts but I'll take it for now. We have new terrain rules for everyone, that's fantastic! We have a all faction list of blast weapon updates, hoorah! And new army composition and gameplay requirement only for marines and necrons play by for now and probably others over the course of two years. Massive changes to game style in the form of weapon buffs for the favored few.

What I wanted to see is what we got in 9th, plus the "core" units list just like blast. For the codices to be about where they are now with the subscription showing all rules but without having to buy each factions datasheets/specials.

I can't wait for the Marine Codex to drop and the same crowd to go:

"Well, we haven't got the other 9th Codices yet, so we'll have to wait and see how good this new book really is!".

Ice_can wrote:

Oh joy if you compair them to intercessors they are fine, funny how those same marine players ignore any comparisons to Kabalites, Guardians, Firewarriors.

.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I can't wait for the Marine Codex to drop and the same crowd to go:

"Well, we haven't got the other 9th Codices yet, so we'll have to wait and see how good this new book really is!".

What are the scenarios?

A) Marines are still strong.
B) The changes nerf marines so much, because other books retain their per-nerf strats and auras.

How is it exactly that we assess if A is true? We glance at the codex and say, yep, terrible. Or do we allow it to process for a while? In that Brisbane GT the only people 4-0 are GK, AdMech, and Daemons. The top 10 has two codex marine (Nids are #5) lists and round 5 is currently going. If the marine book is considered over powered right now, but people are consistently winning against them then how are you squaring those two things?

And how do we determine if B is true?

Personally, if the rumors are true, I imagine the old codexes are going to over power the new ones, because combo wombo will reign supreme. By how much I don't know. So I'll play games and find out instead of making assertions based on conjecture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I don't like the wait and see mentality in part because not everyone has to wait. If GW released rules updates across all factions at the same time it could result in easier digestion of concepts and everyone playing the same game. It would not help the sheer number of books for a player (assuming you don't buy rules you don't personally use) but there are ways around that like binders and book sharing groups or digital.

Currently, I can only know what other players are capable of by spending hundreds of dollars on multiple books for their faction. Or by getting the rules through unofficial means (which gw will ignore as a possibility, short of cease notices) or memorizing by experience. I can only play on even footing with the select armies that are in the same codex run as myself, if the codices are balanced which isn't the norm here.

Now we have a new game wide points system all at once. That's great! There are whispers of that being a game of darts but I'll take it for now. We have new terrain rules for everyone, that's fantastic! We have a all faction list of blast weapon updates, hoorah! And new army composition and gameplay requirement only for marines and necrons play by for now and probably others over the course of two years. Massive changes to game style in the form of weapon buffs for the favored few.

What I wanted to see is what we got in 9th, plus the "core" units list just like blast. For the codices to be about where they are now with the subscription showing all rules but without having to buy each factions datasheets/specials.

Few people are spending hundreds of dollars on books for their army.

I do find it lacking that PA for DG "just" came out and their new codex will kick it to the curb. People barely got to use it. Partly to blame COVID. Most blame goes to GW for a terrible choice of timeline. Marines got to use their book for 6 months out of 12 due to COVID, but its still a too short timeline.

Would I like free rules? You bet. I never imagined they'd actually give free digital rules (and neither did anyone else). It isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. The app should help move them along, too.

It becomes seemingly more apparent that the points were to prop up the old versus the new. Whether or not they got it in the ballpark remains to be seen.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And how do we determine if B is true?

Clearly we'll have to wait and see.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Would I like free rules? You bet. I never imagined they'd actually give free digital rules (and neither did anyone else). It isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. The app should help move them along, too.

It becomes seemingly more apparent that the points were to prop up the old versus the new. Whether or not they got it in the ballpark remains to be seen.

What I mean is it would have been nice if 8th was released as sets. We got the index phase and that was good. Then it could have been an expansion where one book had fluff battles for a bunch of factions, and WLT/Relics/objectives, 6 for each faction and 1 for each subfaction. Just like with the codices but one book has all factions, no surprises, no 2yr wait. The next book would be more fluff and all the first wave stratagems for faction and 1/sub. The third book would be all the sub-faction stuff and PA fluff. They could even try to keep selling CA for missions and balancing. Cap it with a fresh 9th codex for 1 army peeps.

It's too late for that now, but going forward they are continuing to give game changing features to us one army at a time (two for release) in very specific army books. What I want asap at minimum is for each faction to get a codex that has all the existing material in one place and with the updates applied to keep everyone on the same footing until the next thing comes. IDK what the next thing will be, stratagems feel bloated to me already.

BrianDavion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Oh joy if you compair them to intercessors they are fine, funny how those same marine players ignore any comparisons to Kabalites, Guardians, Firewarriors.

that's because marine players can't take kabalites guardians and firewarriors.

So how else do you compair inter codex balance then?

Ice_can wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Oh joy if you compair them to intercessors they are fine, funny how those same marine players ignore any comparisons to Kabalites, Guardians, Firewarriors.

that's because marine players can't take kabalites guardians and firewarriors.

So how else do you compair inter codex balance then?

numerous factors. a codex is more then just one unit (especially in this era of auras etc) as has been noted elsewhere. plenty of armies other then marines are winning this way because the scoring system values the ability to put boots on the ground. remember the CHEAPEST troop in the marine codex is going to be 18 PPM.

How long will GK players have to wait and see?
While their brethren will get a codex in Oct and old-school Marines will get 2W, the GKSS will be upgraded (hopefully) someday next year.
Until then GK is more or less dead.

 wuestenfux wrote:
How long will GK players have to wait and see?
While their brethren will get a codex in Oct and old-school Marines will get 2W, the GKSS will be upgraded (hopefully) someday next year.
Until then GK is more or less dead.

Not really?

If you're arguing they're less effective against marines? Maybe. If you think they'll be any worse against every faction that's not marines? No.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's a distinct difference between the start of an edition where a global keyword can make all the difference - and the middle of an edition when we're waiting for more codexes, but the design space is known.

I don't know about 6th or 7th ed, but for me the 8th the wait and see, ment I had to wait till the very end of 8th ed, and then stores closed. now 9th is fun for me right now, but if it wasn't and someone told me that I have to wait and see again, I don't think the end vs mid edition argument would work on me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
How long will GK players have to wait and see?
While their brethren will get a codex in Oct and old-school Marines will get 2W, the GKSS will be upgraded (hopefully) someday next year.
Until then GK is more or less dead.

Not really?

If you're arguing they're less effective against marines? Maybe. If you think they'll be any worse against every faction that's not marines? No.

if the codex after codex marines are going to assume that a meq has 2W, then any army which 1W is going to be at a huge disadventage. It isn't just a special GK thing. If somehow csm units were to stay at 1W, they would be in the same position. And yes I know that they are getting buffed to 2W, question is, if their cost is being buffed to being 2W too.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
How long will GK players have to wait and see?
While their brethren will get a codex in Oct and old-school Marines will get 2W, the GKSS will be upgraded (hopefully) someday next year.
Until then GK is more or less dead.

Not really?

If you're arguing they're less effective against marines? Maybe. If you think they'll be any worse against every faction that's not marines? No.

if the codex after codex marines are going to assume that a meq has 2W, then any army which 1W is going to be at a huge disadventage. It isn't just a special GK thing. If somehow csm units were to stay at 1W, they would be in the same position. And yes I know that they are getting buffed to 2W, question is, if their cost is being buffed to being 2W too.

My example refers only to my beloved GK.
But its also valid for all other armies which get a ''wound boost''.
What would you do with such an army? Shelving?

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's a distinct difference between the start of an edition where a global keyword can make all the difference - and the middle of an edition when we're waiting for more codexes, but the design space is known.

I don't know about 6th or 7th ed, but for me the 8th the wait and see, ment I had to wait till the very end of 8th ed, and then stores closed. now 9th is fun for me right now, but if it wasn't and someone told me that I have to wait and see again, I don't think the end vs mid edition argument would work on me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
How long will GK players have to wait and see?
While their brethren will get a codex in Oct and old-school Marines will get 2W, the GKSS will be upgraded (hopefully) someday next year.
Until then GK is more or less dead.

Not really?

If you're arguing they're less effective against marines? Maybe. If you think they'll be any worse against every faction that's not marines? No.

if the codex after codex marines are going to assume that a meq has 2W, then any army which 1W is going to be at a huge disadventage. It isn't just a special GK thing. If somehow csm units were to stay at 1W, they would be in the same position. And yes I know that they are getting buffed to 2W, question is, if their cost is being buffed to being 2W too.

How is it a disadvantage? Theyre cheaper and the d2 weapons spammed against marines will be wasted. If you follow that logic every codex who doesn't have their base troops 2w is now at a disadvantage.