9th edition incoming

[Guest Triszin]

So what is combat attrition?

 

Would that make freak show wolves viable?

[Wolf Guard Dan]

Wish everything wasn’t a video review these days. I like to read something in two minutes rather than have to watch a 15 min video about it.

 

Triszin, I don’t know if any specifics are leaked yet about the new morale process. GW will probably do an article about it in the future though. Big changes like that tend to get some attention from the Warhammer community team.

[Debauchery101]

That Q and A just train wrecked my Brain and any scheming I had going on.

Some things they said...also I am not quoting verbatim. If I missed something chime in

 

1-hit modifiers won't stack. I don't know if that applies to + and -...that kicks quite a few armies right in the knutz

 

2-terrain changes to classify types which will impede movement/line of sight. I rather enjoyed the 3rd edition style terrain system except for the height rules vs LOS.

 

3-troops no longer matter in generating CP!!?!?!?!?...im already imagining a ton of janky ass :cuss: I can do or that can be done to me.

I never agreed on the slot system. I liked the 2nd edition format which required % spent in troops with caps on HQ, hvy and elite

Edited May 27, 2020 by Jarl Caldersson
Please do not bypass the swear filter.

[Lord Blackwood]

Adjustments to command point generation ( I.E. being based on game size)  Is an interesting thing to consider. 

Given the freedom we have in selecting detachments , it really could see a bit of shifting as it pertains to what units you wanna take. 

I have a slight suspicion that this may be also balanced by a number of things , like missions requiring board presence  or perhaps some sort of benefit from  bringing troops other  than just objective secured. 

All that being said space wolves have fairly strong troop units , atleast as things are laid out right now  ,though not having to take something like double battalion  to ensure the resource means that perhaps we will see more diverse army lists. 

[Guest Triszin]

That Q and A just train wrecked my Brain and any scheming I had going on.

Some things they said...also I am not quoting verbatim. If I missed something chime in

 

1-hit modifiers won't stack. I don't know if that applies to + and -...that kicks quite a few armies right in the knutz

 

2-terrain changes to classify types which will impede movement/line of sight. I rather enjoyed the 3rd edition style terrain system except for the height rules vs LOS.

 

3-troops no longer matter in generating CP!!?!?!?!?...im already imagining a ton of janky ass phuqery I can do or that can be done to me.

I never agreed on the slot system. I liked the 2nd edition format which required % spent in troops with caps on HQ, hvy and elite

they might*

 

I assume every detachment will get reworked.

 

and there might be different detachments depending on game size. so atm, im not assuming anything.

 

-----------

 

astartes chainswords sound like ALL chainsword for marines are getting -1 ap at minimum and MAYBE +1 str.

 

as a way to differentiate marines using chain-swords, and sisters/gourd.

 

+/- Modifiers are now capped at 1. ( +1 to hit, -1  to hit) as an example. so no stacking -1 to hit -1  to hit -1 to hit on eldar bikes

 

a roll of a 6 now ALWAYS hits. ( YAY)

[Debauchery101]

Adjustments to command point generation ( I.E. being based on game size) Is an interesting thing to consider.

 

Given the freedom we have in selecting detachments , it really could see a bit of shifting as it pertains to what units you wanna take.

 

I have a slight suspicion that this may be also balanced by a number of things , like missions requiring board presence or perhaps some sort of benefit from bringing troops other than just objective secured.

 

All that being said space wolves have fairly strong troop units , atleast as things are laid out right now ,though not having to take something like double battalion to ensure the resource means that perhaps we will see more diverse army lists.

My BA and SW definitely will be looking good since my strategy revolves around minimal I cp use. As well as having the best marine troops

 

Now for my Raptors troops are very much a tax. The more Aggros, eliminators and centurions I can bring the better

Edited May 26, 2020 by Debauchery101

[One Two Wolf]

Is all very interesting. Removing stacked modifiers is great, castles that are super powerful and then impervious to return fire take a big nerf, and there will be more strategic use of negative modifiers.

 

Rewatching the nine things video, he says "tanks can blast at point blank and keep rolling" - so perhaps shoot a weapon instead of melee attacks? Maybe not complete freedom of shooting when tagged.

 

As for the no troops needed... Very very sad face.

[Valerian]

As for the no troops needed... Very very sad face.

Maybe no Troops need to maximize your CP, but I’d bet that there are going to be some core mission parameters that reward having Troops, if not outright require it. For example, in ‘The Four Pillars’ mission from CA 2019, only Troops can even score the objectives.

[One Two Wolf]

 

As for the no troops needed... Very very sad face.

Maybe no Troops need to maximize your CP, but I’d bet that there are going to be some core mission parameters that reward having Troops, if not outright require it. For example, in ‘The Four Pillars’ mission from CA 2019, only Troops can even score the objectives.

Yep, big hope you're right.

[Lord Ragnarok]

 

As for the no troops needed... Very very sad face.

Maybe no Troops need to maximize your CP, but I’d bet that there are going to be some core mission parameters that reward having Troops, if not outright require it. For example, in ‘The Four Pillars’ mission from CA 2019, only Troops can even score the objectives.

 

I agree. They will make it attractive to include (or unattractive to not include)

[Gherrick]

I'm glad GW finally realized tying CP to detachments was a bad idea. They should make troop-centric detachments gain a special rule (like formations in 7th) to incentivize their use. Lowering point costs for troops should also help make them more attractive.

 

I also hope GW stops putting point costs inside the codices. I'd rather see a living pdf with points, and just have a printed copy included with each book.

[Bryan Blaire]

Lord Ragnarok and I may be working on something that will sate your thirst...

Well, color me your preferred ice/storm/sky/wolf grey intrigued...

 

Normally I'd be working up my own concepts and 3D modeling, but I've been out of that game for a while, and have no system, printer, or time to get back in. :lol:

 

I like the idea of using a plain axe/blade combo on Incursors or plain axes (or chainswords) on Reivers as their combat blades, but I haven't really liked most of the axe options out there.

 

I do really like the concept of the Bladeguard Veterans (and their shields) and the idea of the headsman (although I may not end up liking the fluff), but I don't think the models will fit the Wolves well, so looking at building some suitable Wolf versions later.

[Debauchery101]

I'm glad GW finally realized tying CP to detachments was a bad idea. They should make troop-centric detachments gain a special rule (like formations in 7th) to incentivize their use. Lowering point costs for troops should also help make them more attractive.

 

I also hope GW stops putting point costs inside the codices. I'd rather see a living pdf with points, and just have a printed copy included with each book.

Well I feel I could safely bet on GW increasing cost on a lot of stratagems now. At first I liked CP/Stratagem system but I feel its bloated because they constantly needing to add or nerf for balance. Competitively steatagem use and counter is the core component to build and play around.

 

I honestly want to see most gone from codex lists and see most stratagems provided by missions especially in competition. It would force more balanced list taking and i would think prevent most rock paper scissor matching

Edited May 27, 2020 by Debauchery101

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

Here is what I proposed as a possibility in news and rumors

 

What follows is total speculation...

 

I am thinking the CP thing may work as follows:

 

Get a CP for every 100 points you are playing

 

First battalion (likely will be an exception for knights to change this to a super heavy detachment) is free but not required later cost 2-3cp

 

Patrol, can only have 1 per faction, but free (likely a DE exception here)

 

Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider, super heavy- 2-3cp per detachment

 

Super heavy auxiliary 1cp

 

Brigade- free but replaces free battlion

 

And ally detachment costs double the CP required to unlock it (1 for patrol)

 

Its the only thing I can think of that fits what they said, keeps troops relevant, maintains some sort of force Org, but gives you the flexibility to leave out troops should you desire.

 

I think I would be ok with a system like this. I feel it would correct some imbalances inherent in the current cp system

 

Again this is all a guess

 

As for the revealed changes, my biggest 8th edition gripes were Leadership and Terrain and it sounds like they are trying to clear those up, so I'm all around happy with what little they've revealed so far

[Wolf Guard Dan]

Just sharing a rumor I’ve heard. Your warlord detachment is free. Pay for the others. Also I’ve heard on podcasts that table size is being changed. That’s quite inconvenient for everyone invested in a 6x4 table or mat.

 

Edit: I’m less sure about the table size rumor. Way less sure that it actually gets enacted in common use.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Wolf Guard Dan

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

Could be a misunderstanding regarding the smaller table size for the 500 point games or other adjustments for the smaller games. 6x4 is so ingrained and so many people have prepared tables and stuff (not sold by GW) so I feel like this is a bad rumor.

 

The warlord detachment being free is intriguing though...

Edited May 27, 2020 by Rune Priest Jbickb

[Dark Shepherd]

I very much like this Warlord related rumour. Stick it in the news and rumours thread too :)

 

Was just thinking Bjorn becomes even more valuable now for free CP as does that strat that lets you kill enemy characters, crack open their skulls, feast on the goo inside, and get a free CP

[PeteySödes]

Table one is odd for sure. Would require a considerable shift by GW stores alone if not something that uses 2' sections.

[Valerian]

I think that’s a misinterpretation of the discussion in yesterday’s Q&A. They just mention playing a 3,000 point game on your coffee table as not being appropriate. They’ve got a new system that more appropriately matches Mission parameters, and table size, with size of battle (ie points).

 

They aren’t looking to inconvenience 90% of the player base. “Regular” sized battles will still no doubt be on 6x4s.

[Valerian]

Article about 9th Edition from Goonhammer. First bit is just the dudes discussing what they’re excited about, but after that is a very handy comprehensive list of everything we know, so far. Great to have it all in one place.

 

https://www.goonhammer.com/warhammer-40k-9th-edition-what-we-know-and-what-were-hype-for/

[Gherrick]

I'm curious if the Grey Knights will forever be excluded from primaris. Will they ever get a truesize mini makeover?

[Valerian]

I'm curious if the Grey Knights will forever be excluded from primaris. Will they ever get a truesize mini makeover?

I think so. We’ve discussed this over on the GK forum. If you look at all of the Primaris units produced so far, other than a couple named special characters for each of the major Chapters (Ragnar, Lazarus, Calgar, Shrike, etc), all of the actual units have been ones that could pretty easily be integrated into 999 Chapters. Mostly with unadorned armour, so they don’t clash with the aesthetic of any Chapter, and pretty easily modified with upgrade packs and spare bits to fit in with their Firstborn peers. Obviously, they integrate into Codex Chapters more easily than Codex-divergent (like Space Wolves), but they’ve done well for a one-size-fits-all, mass produced set of additional units.

 

The only Chapter where they wouldn’t fit in, at all, are the Grey Knights. To integrate there, they’ve got to have the bespoke armour, with the hexagrammic wards, and the copy of the Liber Daemonica encased in ceramite on the chest. They need the storm bolters and nemesis force weapons. You can’t just take an Intercessor Squad and paint them silver, and say they’re Grey Knights.

 

However, in the same way that I think there will eventually be some faction-specific Primaris units for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves, I think they’ll also eventually tackle Primaris for Grey Knights.

[Debauchery101]

I'm curious if the Grey Knights will forever be excluded from primaris. Will they ever get a truesize mini makeover?

Oh what the Emperors Geneseed ain't good enough?

I'm going to need a Heavy Flamer for this heresy!

[Plague _Lord]

Man those bikes look tasty in space wolf colours!

[Gherrick]

Man those bikes look tasty in space wolf colours!

Can anyone speculate how much larger the base is over the original bikes? I already have a bunch of those, and while I agree the new ones look great, I'd rather rebase my existing ones. I'm more than a bit annoyed they took our WG bikes away. I kit-bashed some GK arms with storm bolters so I could have the other arm holding the handlebars. Similarly, I built 3 custom bikers for the different priests (rune, wolf, and iron), since in 7e we had that sweet priest formation and bikes were still an option then.

 

While others seem ok with having their models becoming obsolete, it still grates on my nerves that since starting in 7e, most of my army is now in legends. Doesn't look like those will ever see play again.