Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Codex Roadmap


  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

#126
SkimaskMohawk

SkimaskMohawk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,527 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Faction: Raven Guard and VIII Legion


6ths flaws was being able to attach ICs to monstrous creatures and the initial look out sir mechanic. From the core rules there was very little that was broken or that didn't function properly; terrain was especially good in 6th. It was all the stuff they started sliding in with formations and things that didn't count towards allies that broke the edition. The problem with 8th was that there were so few core rule mechanics, and those ended up being unrecognizable by the end of the life cycle.

Formations broke 7th, not 6th, though. Terrain-wise I prefer the current "modifies armor save" approach since back then a marine standing in the open or behind an Aegis Defence Line had the exact same save which made no sense. But it WAS simpler all in all. These days my battles last half as many turns as back then because of all the extra rolling and everything else, but still take much longer in terms of time.

But going back on topic of the roadmap, I do wonder when orks get the new book. Though frankly I'm kinda dreading it, at this point I don't even know what they can do with it to make it viable against the likes of marines. They have already finished books for the next six months probably, and I do wish they could just flat out tell the order in which they're coming instead of this current non-news.

Formations were introduced in 6th. The tau firebase thing, the tyranid objective secured one with gargoyles. 7th had detachments comprised of multiple formations. And for terrain I don't necessarily mean cover (though I personally prefer the cover save to the simple +1), I mean how units interacted with ruins.

All I want from the 9th edition codexes is that the power level is kept the same across the board. I'm all for toning down 8thisms, but I'm dreading the valley before the peak if you know what I mean.

#127
tvih

tvih

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,319 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Faction: CF/BT/Orks/SoB/IG

 

Formations were introduced in 6th. The tau firebase thing, the tyranid objective secured one with gargoyles. 7th had detachments comprised of multiple formations. And for terrain I don't necessarily mean cover (though I personally prefer the cover save to the simple +1), I mean how units interacted with ruins.

All I want from the 9th edition codexes is that the power level is kept the same across the board. I'm all for toning down 8thisms, but I'm dreading the valley before the peak if you know what I mean.

 

Ah, I didn't really play against Tau or Tyranids in 6th. But I don't recall our local meta at least having much problems with formations. Certainly not a problem earlier in the edition at least. Of course you had various deathstars etc other problems, no denying that. (Also I didn't really play 7th, just a couple of matches, for various reasons.)

 

And the problem with 9th codexes... well, given this baseline, even with the somewhat lesser rerolls etc by marines in the new codex, it's still an insanely destructive baseline. So even a slightly messed up deployment can already easily lose you the match. It just way too much emphasis on first turn decisions, it's hard to swing things around later the way you could in 6th. I mean even in 8th it was rare for me for the match not to be over by the end of turn 3 anyway, so all tiny mistakes are multiplied in effect compared to back when games regularly lasted 5 turns or even up to 7 depending on the "does the game end?" rolls!



#128
Black Blow Fly

Black Blow Fly

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 14,802 posts
  • Location:Unto realms immortal...
  • Faction: TODESKOMPANIE
6th because things like Taunar.
=][= fortis Fortuna adiuvat . =][=
my 40k FB Page:
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est
Terminus Est
Blood and Honor!

#129
Reskin

Reskin

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 250 posts
  • Location:Aboard a Battle Barge

 

Like what Tvih mentioned, I've been burned before from buying something and then having it go out of date the next month, with no warning from the GW staff to wait a bit with a wink.

Its not just the money, PA: ritual of the dammed really helped GK's, but the fact I'm now having to carry two different books, and ritual of the dammed had crap in the book that has completely no use to me. So I essentially paid $70 AUD for 5 pages of GK updates. So now I'm carrying 2 army books, the BRB, and a printed out FAQ for both my army, and the core rules.

 

That's a lot of.... censored.gif to be carrying around with me. And its confusing as heck. I have an idea of how the game and codex work, So coming back I quickly adjusted and filtered all the relevant information.

Could you imagine a person just starting out? What a cluster censored.gif

It's why they, if they cared about customers, wouldn't even charge for the rules (or rather of course they could sell physical rulebooks, but they'd be free digitally). Because if they knew their customers, they'd also know that it'd translate to more model sales with the money "saved" anyway, so they'd still get just as much money. Plastic crack is plastic crack. Heck, with the goodwill generated they might make MORE money. But nooooo, instead they jack up the codex prices even further. I definitely refused to get the PA stuff already. Just ridiculous when you have multiple armies but most in different PA books. It was clear 9th was going to be around the corner. Also more about the card things as others also mentioned... yeah. There'd be the main codex card, the supplement cards, and even then you'd miss PA strat cards and whatever else. Completely bonkers. I really need to make my own cards or reference lists going forward.

 

Looking back a lot of people seem to hate 6th edition times for some reason. And granted, in many ways things are better now. More frequent updates would be great if not for the cost of keeping up, and all that. But boy was the game simpler and faster to play. Now you need a personal library servitor to play and another cogitator servitor to keep track of everything else. And 8th/9th were supposed to be the simple editions! Add in the massively increased volume of dice rolling and rerolling - especially for marines - and the games just take ages by comparison. 6th most certainly had its flaws too but I've been starting to miss it with all this bloat and insane first turn alpha strikes.

 

 

 

6th editions problem was the psychic phase. There were 5 or 6 different lores and you could attach an IC to a unit of daemons and make them nigh invulnerable. I had a friend who was planning for a tournament at Nova and said if he didnt roll 3 very distinct spells before the game started he would lose. That seemed like something was quite wrong with the games mechanics at the time.

Then yeah, formations came along for 7th and armies got 500 free points, free advance moves, and near automatic Reanimation Protocols.

We’re in a much better place now lol.

Also, why the secrecy in the article over the January codexs? They already told us last month Dark Angels were coming in January; secrecy tongue in cheek for the Dark Angels?

 

 

 

 

6ths flaws was being able to attach ICs to monstrous creatures and the initial look out sir mechanic. From the core rules there was very little that was broken or that didn't function properly; terrain was especially good in 6th. It was all the stuff they started sliding in with formations and things that didn't count towards allies that broke the edition. The problem with 8th was that there were so few core rule mechanics, and those ended up being unrecognizable by the end of the life cycle.

Formations broke 7th, not 6th, though. Terrain-wise I prefer the current "modifies armor save" approach since back then a marine standing in the open or behind an Aegis Defence Line had the exact same save which made no sense. But it WAS simpler all in all. These days my battles last half as many turns as back then because of all the extra rolling and everything else, but still take much longer in terms of time.

But going back on topic of the roadmap, I do wonder when orks get the new book. Though frankly I'm kinda dreading it, at this point I don't even know what they can do with it to make it viable against the likes of marines. They have already finished books for the next six months probably, and I do wish they could just flat out tell the order in which they're coming instead of this current non-news.

Formations were introduced in 6th. The tau firebase thing, the tyranid objective secured one with gargoyles. 7th had detachments comprised of multiple formations. And for terrain I don't necessarily mean cover (though I personally prefer the cover save to the simple +1), I mean how units interacted with ruins.

All I want from the 9th edition codexes is that the power level is kept the same across the board. I'm all for toning down 8thisms, but I'm dreading the valley before the peak if you know what I mean.

 

 

6th edition was when as a Grey Knight all my units had to channel or some crap and generate my "magic dice pool" like some weird version of 8th edition fantasy. Then the psychic spells had different values I had to roll between 1 and 3 dice to attempt to cast. Was horrible. 

And lets not forget... that was when they introduced grav weapons... the worst possible thing they have EVER done in my most humble and non arrogant opinion tongue.png Absolutely destroyed my paladin bubble and my soul. (this was after Draigo made paladins troop choices in 5th edition, and I was practically king of the hill - I loved it!)

 

Then there was the soup meta, where GW basically said, NO RULES! we want people to use whatever models they have in their collection. So you started getting guard and SM's and all sorts of nasty combos that really created a bloodbath. 6th and 7th were the AGE of xenos and were predominately a gunline shooting game. line you models up against the table edge and then have your Admech or Tau friend proceed to delete units 1 by 1 or 2 by 2 and then watch then cackle with glee as they remove paladins with such ease like a moth in a breeze. 8th edition had some hope for me, but the false promises and hype were in fact a let down, 1st turn alpha striking with a deep strike and then failing to charge... was in fact a trap. And 8th still felt like a gun line. In each of those editions the missions were horrible. In fact like previously stated, pointless. As my opponent wouldn't even bother playing the mission, just shoot me to death.

 

9th edition, has been crafted with pro players input and a lot more play testers from across the board. The missions really do feel important, Victory Points really feel important, and when you don't achieve a secondary objective this turn and miss out on 3VP, you cringe a little. The rules are simplified imho. After 1 basic game of 9th, 8 of my friends proceeded to play an inhouse round robin tournament and the games ran very well, everything was clear and easy to understand, even with the terrain rules.

 

The games were getting increasing longer in 8th edition. It was an issue that the play testers and GW addressed. After codex's, then supplement's and chapter approved editions reducing the point costs of units, by the end of the editions, you were fielding more units then you started with.

 

That is being addressed in 9th edition. That's why they are taking away aura's and rerolls from most things. (less rolling of dice in one players turn). Most units and wargear would be increasing. yes to balance things. But also to reduce the amount of models or units people take in larger games. And that will be across the board. Which I am reluctantly ok with. Because that's one thing I hate as a GK, being forced to take less, I don't feel so bad now that I know my opponent will be as well. 


Edited by Reskin, 22 October 2020 - 02:04 AM.

DHoaUD5.jpg 


#130
WrathOfTheLion

WrathOfTheLion

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,399 posts
  • Location:South Carolina, USA
  • Faction: Dark Angels, WB & SW

Started in 7th but didn't play much. More familiar with HH really. Psychic phase is still a problem in HH. I think its ruleset is good for its niche as a specialist game, but I would like them to iterate on the Psychic phase.

 

As per the roadmap, I would like them to get the codices right this time. I am apprehensive to purchase new books now, would rather codices, etc. stay valid longer, and they do more content like the crusade packs. Campaign books that are actually campaigns are great to me, but the constant churn on books leaves me wanting to purchase none of them at all by now and has me extremely reluctant to start a new army.


  • byrd9999 likes this

sml_gallery_48988_16308_4210.png


#131
Dark Shepherd

Dark Shepherd

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,028 posts

Started in 7th but didn't play much. More familiar with HH really. Psychic phase is still a problem in HH. I think its ruleset is good for its niche as a specialist game, but I would like them to iterate on the Psychic phase.

As per the roadmap, I would like them to get the codices right this time. I am apprehensive to purchase new books now, would rather codices, etc. stay valid longer, and they do more content like the crusade packs. Campaign books that are actually campaigns are great to me, but the constant churn on books leaves me wanting to purchase none of them at all by now and has me extremely reluctant to start a new army.


Hey youve got the app now to keep track of the books you buy πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†

Anything more than 2 books for a monocodex army is a massive pain.

I get the impression the 8th ed codices were almost a dry run for the 9th ed ones so hopefully they are more measured. Will be a laugh if theres negative power creep (for the dominant armies)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users