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.

Karol wrote:


There is few armies left to update in this edition. The last few codex always were writen with next edition in mind. The fact that GW writes their rules the way they do has nothing to do with it. When sm 2.0 came out, And 8th SoB, the rules set they had was clearly mirroring the early armies of 9th ed and not armies that came out in 8th.

I don't know what a po3y is.


[.

Yea that's why last codexes have rules that don't work at all in new edition right? Literally rules that do nothing...clearly made with knowledge of what coming...Oh and then get new book among first in new edition. So well designed for new ed needs new book to work properly in new ed. Lol.

That claim is just marketing speech so guillible people give cash to gw. It has no basis at all in reality.


And you bit it whole. Gw marketing department laughing hard.

Karol wrote:
The last few codex always were writen with next edition in mind.

What support do you have for this statement?

there are some statement from GW and former GW designers and the so called "mid-edition design shift" as we see a change in codex design in the middle of the releases which would also be the same time GW would need to start working on the new Edition

it might not be intended at all but simply because the same people are working on the new stuff means that they are influenced by it while writing something new for the old edition

that it happens that a new Codex does not work at all with the next Edition can have several reason, it might be older but was not released earlier, the rules it was based on did not made into the new Edition (because it was written at an early stage of development) or the designer writing the Codex did never see the full rules for the new Edition at all

but we know that not all books released during one Edition are on the same design level and it is not just power-creep to make each new release stronger but a change in design which should not be there if everything is written with the same core system in mind

tneva82 wrote:
Yea that's why last codexes have rules that don't work at all in new edition right?

just because GW sucks at writing rules does not mean the books were not written with the new Edition in the back

and rules are something GW does not care anyway as those are disposable as soon as the books sold, while models are the thing that stays
so the same way Warhammer Fantasy models in 8th were already designed for a Skirmish game (while the rules were not) Votann are made for what is coming, even if the rules are not (because no one cares about rules that are thrown in the pin in 6 months anyway)

WaIt aNd SeE until next edition!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?

Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.

A lie by omission is still a lie, you know.

Well, if ignoring a whole book (I.e. all the rules) is similar to ignoring 1 rule with the intent of making the game more pleasing for your opponent, which is why they suggest banning it, then the following applies:

Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.

But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.

Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are.

The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another

LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Good.

The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.

Slipspace wrote:
The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.

But would they sell as well if they didn't do that?

GW doesn't design rules to be good game. Everything they do is aimed for one thing only. Models sell.

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.

But would they sell as well if they didn't do that?

Yes. The number of people playing tournaments, or even competitively, is relatively small. The vast majority of people don't care about chasing the meta but they do ultimately care about unbalanced rules because playing games against armies vastly more powerful than your own just isn't fun.

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments

which itself is nothing special, was the same with Orks until the new Codex and units got a regular release

so nothing to worry about unless it stays after the regular release and 2 week FAQ

Hecaton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Good.

"Verbotskultur" is alive and well..friendly cultural banter aside... I doubt this will do much, gw will neither Change their release system nor actually imoroving rulesdesign via the replacement of certain writers.
Telling it still is though, about the state of the game, it was clear that AoC and invul inflation would have consequences.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Good.

"Verbotskultur" is alive and well..friendly cultural banter aside... I doubt this will do much, gw will neither Change their release system nor actually imoroving rulesdesign via the replacement of certain writers.
Telling it still is though, about the state of the game, it was clear that AoC and invul inflation would habe consequences.

You're going to have to explain that one for me, it's the auto-wounding that seems to be the biggest bug bear here and is neither related directly to AoC or Invulns. The rail weapons benefit lopsidedly from the auto-wounds because of always counting as a natural 6, without those the army is immediately dialled right back and then likely the biggest offender might be the army wide 5++/4++ trait, which needs knocking down a pip to match every other army in the game, but honestly wouldn't be absurdly horrid if the judgement mechanics were toned right back.

Slipspace wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.

But would they sell as well if they didn't do that?

Yes. The number of people playing tournaments, or even competitively, is relatively small. The vast majority of people don't care about chasing the meta but they do ultimately care about unbalanced rules because playing games against armies vastly more powerful than your own just isn't fun.

I dare say, with whfb in mind, that this is the correct assessement

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

maybe somewhat ironically, but I think the game state would improve if this were the norm. If big tournaments/events had blanket bans on all codexes at release and waited for first FAQ/2 months/IDK I'm not the tournament expert here, GW would (theoretically) react by releasing more usable books as they wouldn't be able to rely on the surge of competitive players. They'd still get the "new shiny" painters/players, but if we're supposing 9th edition is Tournament Edition, as some on this forum have called it, then competitive folk must be a big enough slice of the pie for GW to care.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Good.

"Verbotskultur" is alive and well..friendly cultural banter aside... I doubt this will do much, gw will neither Change their release system nor actually imoroving rulesdesign via the replacement of certain writers.
Telling it still is though, about the state of the game, it was clear that AoC and invul inflation would habe consequences.

You're going to have to explain that one for me, it's the auto-wounding that seems to be the biggest bug bear here and is neither related directly to AoC or Invulns. The rail weapons benefit lopsidedly from the auto-wounds because of always counting as a natural 6, without those the army is immediately dialled right back and then likely the biggest offender might be the army wide 5++/4++ trait, which needs knocking down a pip to match every other army in the game, but honestly wouldn't be absurdly horrid if the judgement mechanics were toned right back.

Again, i am talking about the general inflation of Defensive and offensive increases.
It was bound to lead to such increases, that is my angle.

I see judgement tokens more as an attempt to speed up gameplay, it's an offensive buff that actually reduces dice rolling rather than adding to it; which if it is "written with 10th in mind", meaning we might see crop up in other areas.

 Rihgu wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

maybe somewhat ironically, but I think the game state would improve if this were the norm. If big tournaments/events had blanket bans on all codexes at release and waited for first FAQ/2 months/IDK I'm not the tournament expert here, GW would (theoretically) react by releasing more usable books as they wouldn't be able to rely on the surge of competitive players. They'd still get the "new shiny" painters/players, but if we're supposing 9th edition is Tournament Edition, as some on this forum have called it, then competitive folk must be a big enough slice of the pie for GW to care.

Until GW can show some restraint and fix the codex release process then I'm for banning books at tournaments ( 5+ rounds, at least ) until their first FAQ is out.

Maybe, and this may be a weird thought, if they want to reduce the amount of dice rolling they should actually just reduce the amount of dice needed to be rolled and stop giving everything 3-4 shots and 5-6 attacks?

Dudeface wrote:
I see judgement tokens more as an attempt to speed up gameplay, it's an offensive buff that actually reduces dice rolling rather than adding to it; which if it is "written with 10th in mind", meaning we might see crop up in other areas.

I don't get this mindset of having to speed up the game as much as possible. The game's already much quicker than an equivalent game in 4th-7th Edition, if we want to go the whole hog why not just roll off at the start and the highest number wins?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So how would people fix this book?

Well for the tokens I would try easy fixes. So something like

Tokens on a unit disappear at the end of the turn after the squats target it in the shooting or charge phases (they shoot it or charge it).
OR
Hard cap, at any one time can't have more than 3 units with 1 token, 2 with 2 and 1 with 3.
OR
All tokens disappear at the end of the squat players turn.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe, and this may be a weird thought, if they want to reduce the amount of dice rolling they should actually just reduce the amount of dice needed to be rolled and stop giving everything 3-4 shots and 5-6 attacks?

Heresy!

Seriously, though, this is the way to reduce dice rolling, not some overpowered bypass system that causes more problems than it solves. There's simply no need for, say, a Hormagaunt to have 3 attacks, or a SM with a chainsword to get 4, especially with all the rerolls and bonuses to hit and wound units can trivially get access to. On a related note, it's really uninspiring to see the Kahls give out a simple reroll 1s aura instead of doing something genuinely new and interesting.

I don't mind units getting some extra dice, I find re-rolls are the worst for slowing down the game. I remember they made all twin-linked weapons double shots, in order to reduce re-rolls, but now we have both.

I'd prefer that there wasn't re-rolls in the game at all, except for the command re-roll strat. That'd make things a bit more straightforward.

Valkyrie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I see judgement tokens more as an attempt to speed up gameplay, it's an offensive buff that actually reduces dice rolling rather than adding to it; which if it is "written with 10th in mind", meaning we might see crop up in other areas.

I don't get this mindset of having to speed up the game as much as possible. The game's already much quicker than an equivalent game in 4th-7th Edition, if we want to go the whole hog why not just roll off at the start and the highest number wins?

Because you clearly never played into 8th ed dakkadakkadakka with big blobs of shootas etc. or high shot units with full rerolls to hit and/or wound. below are 2 very good points on how and why the game can be streamlined. It's not about "time" it's about needless effort for minimum difference in output in a lot of circumstances.

Slipspace wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe, and this may be a weird thought, if they want to reduce the amount of dice rolling they should actually just reduce the amount of dice needed to be rolled and stop giving everything 3-4 shots and 5-6 attacks?

Heresy!

Seriously, though, this is the way to reduce dice rolling, not some overpowered bypass system that causes more problems than it solves. There's simply no need for, say, a Hormagaunt to have 3 attacks, or a SM with a chainsword to get 4, especially with all the rerolls and bonuses to hit and wound units can trivially get access to. On a related note, it's really uninspiring to see the Kahls give out a simple reroll 1s aura instead of doing something genuinely new and interesting.

I prefer the below option more but the inflation in attacks is definitely a large factor.

jaredb wrote:I don't mind units getting some extra dice, I find re-rolls are the worst for slowing down the game. I remember they made all twin-linked weapons double shots, in order to reduce re-rolls, but now we have both.

I'd prefer that there wasn't re-rolls in the game at all, except for the command re-roll strat. That'd make things a bit more straightforward.

This is my thought process, If I have to pick out 1's from 45 dice, reroll, pick out remaining hits, roll to wound, reroll 1's from the effort, pass on to save. It's a lot of extra rolling with more straightforward ways round it, I'm sure bigger maths brains than my own can work out where auto-wound on 6's etc places in comparison to reroll 1's on hits and wounds.


Edit: smaller armies is another option ofc!

 kodos wrote:
there are some statement from GW and former GW designers and the so called "mid-edition design shift" as we see a change in codex design in the middle of the releases which would also be the same time GW would need to start working on the new Edition

And that's why 7th edition big mid edition design shift (decurions) was completely abandoned in 8th?

Which is sidenote a pity because it would be neat to have sidegrade formations rewarding fluffy, weaker builds like SM demi company or IG tank regiment but it is what it is...

tneva82 wrote:
GW doesn't design rules to be good game. Everything they do is aimed for one thing only. Models sell.

I like how people always repeat this 4chan nonsense when it's literally never true and all evidence points against it. Deathwatch, a shiny new range of better proportioned SM, was released with trash rules then nerfed five times in a row. Primaris had garbage rules for 1.5 edition and needed three straight buffs in a row to even get to a mediocre status (and some units, like Reivers, remain gak to this very day and only sell because models are nice). Ditto with GSC, bad for most of their existence.

What gets buffed is pet army of inept writers (*cough* Phil Kelly *cough* Eldar *cough* that Tau dude who literally hates doing math *cough* Tau *cough* Cruddace) unless you really believe GW wanted to sell mountains of old, ugly, trash resin models of Dark Reapers in 8th and Spiders in 7th while getting few sales of updated, expensive plastic aspects?

I don't really think it's possible to look at these new rules and avoid the conclusion that GW is purposely ramping up creep to sell models. They know LoV will be broken horribly at launch.

They have to know that major tournaments are taking steps to ban them outright.

If GW does it's normal bait and switch of Release then Nerf, it's just more proof I say.
I really cannot defend this as incompetence now. You're telling me the entire GW rules team thought it was a good idea to give standard infantry, rail guns like the tau have? And create new and ludicrously broken abilities like spill over on wounds now counts towards the entire unit?

There is no possible way this is still incompetence. Now that claim is no longer the null position. The null position is these unit stats are profit driven.

 Irbis wrote:
And that's why 7th edition big mid edition design shift (decurions) was completely abandoned in 8th?

from everything we heard, you must have too as you are long enough around, was that GW planned something different for 8th wich was skipped because of how big AoS failed

but than, it might simply be that GW is just that bad at writing rules no one there knows what they are doing at all and they just keep going because it sells not matter what

Banning definently isnt the way to go if people want the codex re tuned. GW needs to see LOV dominate if you want them to be re balanced kind of like when nids won almost all the top spots at nova one year.

As much as i think they do need to be tweeked it can actually be relatively minor as i said earlier. I think a slight change to the judgment token buffs would leave them in a (very competative but not broken) state. The JTs just break the math of the game too much atm

 Irbis wrote:
And that's why 7th edition big mid edition design shift (decurions) was completely abandoned in 8th?

Well 8th was a reset.

I think its reasonable to say Marines 2.0+Sisters were written with the new edition in mind, as they got purity bonuses which were as yet unknown in 8th edition 40k. All 9th edition books would subsequently get their own versions - on top of improved stat lines, chapter tactics, relics/warlord traits/stratagems etc. The fact you can identify rules which would be obsolete in 9th doesn't really change this - as both were still always going to get new books as well.

I guess the mid-edition change for 9th has been GW upping the defensive stats. With AoC, higher T, higher saves, etc. Rather than just upping damage as they largely did through 2020+2021. Whether that informs us on 10th however remains to be seen.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't really think it's possible to look at these new rules and avoid the conclusion that GW is purposely ramping up creep to sell models. They know LoV will be broken horribly at launch.

They have to know that major tournaments are taking steps to ban them outright.

If GW does it's normal bait and switch of Release then Nerf, it's just more proof I say.
I really cannot defend this as incompetence now. You're telling me the entire GW rules team thought it was a good idea to give standard infantry, rail guns like the tau have? And create new and ludicrously broken abilities like spill over on wounds now counts towards the entire unit?

There is no possible way this is still incompetence. Now that claim is no longer the null position. The null position is these unit stats are profit driven.

How do you explain balanced/lukewarm knights, chaos knights, CSM and daemons that preceded them then?