Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[Saambell]

9th seems to be a sort of strange hybrid between "beer and pretzels casual fun only, no tryhards allowed" and "we are just copy and pasting a tournament mission document to be used in normal games". So they probably saw that most tournaments had a painting score and just slapped that into the normal win conditions. Also for a time, at least around here, Official GW stores wouldn't let people use their tables for games unless the models were painted. This was admittedly back in 5th or 6th edition, and they did remove that soonish after as I guess they had a sudden drop in games being played. They wanted the painted models so the games looked good to passers by and people dropping into the shop, but zero games played probably made it clear how bad a move that was.

This also means that people playing with unpainted models are the new sign of anti WAACs, cause now there's going to be at least a few people who will point to someone showing up to a PuG game with full painted models, and if the models aren't painted "well enough for someone who cares about the hobby", there's going to be cries of "you only painted those for the sake of victory points you horrible try hard". Now there's going to be gate keeping based on painting skills. Git Gud at painting or you are clearly a power gamer who only likes to win games.

[Fable Wright]

So, I looked over the mission rules a bit closer. Here are my general impressions:

• Kill points seem like they are extremely dependent on your list to max out. It wouldn't be hard to ensure that no one could score more than 9-10 points even if they kill all relevant units. It seems like they're more or less a counter for unit spam—whether Titanic Knight spam, vehicle spam, or body spam.
• All shown primary objectives required controlling a number of objectives at the beginning of your turn. This means a mix of durability and bodies on the ground will be desired, and that seems a bit rough to ensure... outside Space Marines.
• On a related note, there is no longer an advantage to taking the second turn, since you're scoring in the command phase rather than bottom of the round.
• On the tables with more than four Objective markers, I think that Raise the Banners High is going to be far better than expected. Though I am bitter that Swarms can't complete it.
• While We Stand, We Fight could, in armies who can have high-survivability-sub-9-wounds characters (like Guilliman), be a staple. 15 VP for untargetable and durable characters seems fairly strong. On a related note, if this does become common, it means that horde armies are less worried about Thin Their Ranks, since if it's 15 points either way, who cares?
• Repair Teleport Homer seems like steaming hot garbage, but I'm wondering if, with Perfect Ambush and Lurk in the Shadows, Genestealer Cult could somehow pull it off despite screens?
• With pre-game moves, I'm thinking that Engage on All Fronts will be rather popular. I know Tau will have a bit of a riot with their stealth suits and 2-man drone units to pull it off.
• It's really, really hard to outrange 30"-36" gun-castles.
• I hesitantly say that Psychic Ritual miiiight be OK for psyker armies, against low-psyker armies like Knights, Mechanicus, Deldar, non-FSE Tau, maybe Guard.
• Thousand Sons and Grey Knights just got hilariously shafted by the existence of the Abhor the Witch objective, which is basically handing an opponent without psykers 15 free VP. Psyker non-characters can't contribute to Warpcraft at all and just give up points.

[Avaris]

So, I was going to do an analysis of which rules changes were good/bad from my perspective, but Goonhammer has basically done it for me! I agree with pretty much everything in that article, good and bad.

The only thing I’d add is an additional bad point: I don’t feel the morale changes are worth it. Combat attrition is a classic example of added complexity without added value. Perhaps we’ll see more signifcance to it as the codexes start to develop though, through things like Night Lords getting abilities that affect combat attrition rolls rather than the morale rolls. Until that point though, it’s not worth it.

It really feels like GW doesn’t know what to do with morale. I think it was 8th that changed it from ‘this unit falls back’ to ‘remove models from unit’? At the time I thought that was a good change, not so sure now. The problem is it makes morale function just as a kill more thing, rather than a unique thing in its own right.

What I’d like to see is something that makes morale function uniquely. Off the top of my head, something like this:

For each point the morale test is failed by, the opponent may select one of the following effects:

• Select a model in the unit to make a single attack against a target of the opponent’s choice
• Move each model in the unit up to 1” in a direction the opponent chooses
• Make a combat attrition roll

The above is obviously in no way balanced or sensible, but something of that ilk would be nice to make morale unique and actually worth having.

Edit: another negative I’ve remembered, though more of a ‘missed opportunity’ thing. I really wish relics and warlord traits had been seperated in some way from the command point economy. As it currently stands, many relics and traits are never picked because they all cost the same, which is a shame.

[snowblizz]

It really feels like GW doesn’t know what to do with morale. I think it was 8th that changed it from ‘this unit falls back’ to ‘remove models from unit’? At the time I thought that was a good change, not so sure now. The problem is it makes morale function just as a kill more thing, rather than a unique thing in its own right.

They don't and they never have. There's one statistic, Leadership, pulling double duty, and a bunch of special rules to try and provide some granularity (most of them mitigating it in my experience). They are trying to be a odenr skirmishing game but simultaneously a classical morale based wargame.

And it seems to swing between tearing massive chunks out of your army to barely mattering at all.

[Forum Explorer]

So, I was going to do an analysis of which rules changes were good/bad from my perspective, but Goonhammer has basically done it for me! I agree with pretty much everything in that article, good and bad.

The only thing I’d add is an additional bad point: I don’t feel the morale changes are worth it. Combat attrition is a classic example of added complexity without added value. Perhaps we’ll see more signifcance to it as the codexes start to develop though, through things like Night Lords getting abilities that affect combat attrition rolls rather than the morale rolls. Until that point though, it’s not worth it.

It really feels like GW doesn’t know what to do with morale. I think it was 8th that changed it from ‘this unit falls back’ to ‘remove models from unit’? At the time I thought that was a good change, not so sure now. The problem is it makes morale function just as a kill more thing, rather than a unique thing in its own right.

What I’d like to see is something that makes morale function uniquely. Off the top of my head, something like this:

For each point the morale test is failed by, the opponent may select one of the following effects:

• Select a model in the unit to make a single attack against a target of the opponent’s choice
• Move each model in the unit up to 1” in a direction the opponent chooses
• Make a combat attrition roll

The above is obviously in no way balanced or sensible, but something of that ilk would be nice to make morale unique and actually worth having.

Edit: another negative I’ve remembered, though more of a ‘missed opportunity’ thing. I really wish relics and warlord traits had been seperated in some way from the command point economy. As it currently stands, many relics and traits are never picked because they all cost the same, which is a shame.

I also mostly agree with what Goonhammer says, but rather than morale, my big complaint is the point cap. Yes, it's effectively only 15 points you can lose if you had an absolutely perfect game but I despise the idea of punishing you for being too successful.


I actually think morale is even less relevant than it was before and I agree that they really don't know what to do with it. The Fall Back in the past had it's problems because it made Marines too good because they ignored everything bad about it.

[Renegade Paladin]

So, I was going to do an analysis of which rules changes were good/bad from my perspective, but Goonhammer has basically done it for me!

Your link doesn't work; you put in an extra http. Here you go.

[Cheesegear]

but Goonhammer has basically done it for me! I agree with pretty much everything in that article, good and bad.

Aside from the broken link...
I felt that they didn't really say anything at all, and what they did say, was actually quite damning.

The rules are 'clearly written and easy to read'...Great. GW learned how to format their books correctly. Gonna talk about certain issues surrounding any unit with 6 or more models? Going to talk about needlessly complicated Terrain rules? Gonna comment on how Vehicles - especially T7 and T8 ones with multiple weapons - seem disproportionately strong? Any comments at all?
No? Just that the book is easy to read? ...Okay.

There's a lot more bad in that article, than good.
But the overall impressions are good? ...Oh right. It's review copies. Can't say anything too negative...Yet.

Oh wait...They already did. The player going first has an almost insurmountable advantage and Secondary Objectives don't really work as written.

The rules work the way that they're intended to. That's fine. "It's designed that way." The rulebook has very clear rules with bullet points. We know what we're supposed to do, in order to play the game. Couldn't be clearer (although 8th Ed. would beg to differ). The Core Rules are fine...So long as we disregard that all the Factions are going to interact differently and most non-Space Marine Factions get shafted.

But the Missions, that is, the fundamental way that you actually play the game, and the way that you win - or lose - at it, is fundamentally broken.

This means that the game is really, really good...If you ignore everything other than the Core Rules, and play 'Let's just kill each other', whoever destroys the most points of stuff, wins.

This feels very 1st Ed. AoS. "Has potential...But not yet. Come back in 6-12 months."

The only thing IÂ’d add is an additional bad point: I donÂ’t feel the morale changes are worth it.

That's actually more core rules commentary than Goonhammer provided.

Incidentally, more than half of them think tying painting to win conditions is bad and leads to gate-keeping.
Have I heard that before?


But it's fine:
Because Oberoni Fallacy, and GW will fix everything, either on Day 1, or in six months.

[LeSwordfish]

But the overall impressions are good? ...Oh right. It's review copies. Can't say anything too negative...Yet.

I'm pretty sure they're reading the leaks.

[Avaris]

I'm pretty sure they're reading the leaks.

Nah, they’ve got the full thing, and have for a while: the other article they posted yesterday was an unboxing, and they’ve got a schedule of much more in depth content over the next week or so (hence why this is overall impressions, rather than in depth critique of the rules)

So yeah, it’s review copies, and while they’re overall positive about the direction it’s going in, they feel comfortable calling out the negative points.

[Cheesegear]

I'm pretty sure they're reading the leaks.

Are they?
Reviews of the box are coming out now, the embargo is over and pre-orders happen next week...

Goonhammer
With 9th edition finally upon us, it’s time to talk about the rules! Having had a chance to pore over the new rules from the Indomitus box...

...Doesn't seem like they're reading leaks.

they feel comfortable calling out the negative points.

We'll see.

As predicted, the game seems like a mess:
- 'Launch Edition' has severe design flaws that make the game almost unplayable. Day 1 FAQ/Errata.
- Lots of people are going to complain about the obviously broken things (e.g; People are obviously going to abuse the **** out of the Crusade system, and why did we tie VPs to painting!?).
- In six months it will improve.
- In twelve months it will be good.
- In 18 months it will be great and why were we ever mad in the first place?
- In 2023 GW makes a new edition, burning everything to the ground and starting again.

[LeSwordfish]

Are they?
Reviews of the box are coming out now, the embargo is over and pre-orders happen next week...



...Doesn't seem like they're reading leaks.

Ah okay, my mistake. Even so, never read a review that says "it's good except for X" because that doesnt usually mean "it's terrible because of X"

[Gauntlet]

New Primaris Melta dudes are 40 points per model.

A 3 man squad is 120 points.
- 6 shots
- 24" range
- 9 wounds
- Toughness 4
- 3+ armor save

A unit of six fire dragons is 132 points.
- 6 shots
- 12" range
- 7 wounds
- Toughness 3
- 3+ armor save

Less points. Significantly more durability. And doubled range. On a unit whose range is their primary limiting factor. They're only even in output when they're within six inches.

[bluntpencil]

New Primaris Melta dudes are 40 points per model.

A 3 man squad is 120 points.
- 6 shots
- 24" range
- 9 wounds
- Toughness 4
- 3+ armor save

A unit of six fire dragons is 132 points.
- 6 shots
- 12" range
- 7 wounds
- Toughness 3
- 3+ armor save

Less points. Significantly more durability. And doubled range. On a unit whose range is their primary limiting factor. They're only even in output when they're within six inches.

They're Toughness 5, yo.

[Gauntlet]

They're Toughness 5, yo.

I'm not even surprised.

[Blackhawk748]

New Primaris Melta dudes are 40 points per model.

A 3 man squad is 120 points.
- 6 shots
- 24" range
- 9 wounds
- Toughness 4
- 3+ armor save

A unit of six fire dragons is 132 points.
- 6 shots
- 12" range
- 7 wounds
- Toughness 3
- 3+ armor save

Less points. Significantly more durability. And doubled range. On a unit whose range is their primary limiting factor. They're only even in output when they're within six inches.

Sweet Lord why do they have 3 Wounds? Are they in Gravis Armor or something?

They're Toughness 5, yo.

WHYYYYYYYYYYY???

The only thing I’d add is an additional bad point: I don’t feel the morale changes are worth it. Combat attrition is a classic example of added complexity without added value. Perhaps we’ll see more signifcance to it as the codexes start to develop though, through things like Night Lords getting abilities that affect combat attrition rolls rather than the morale rolls. Until that point though, it’s not worth it.

GW has always had this problem. The best Morale ever was just when we pretty much all ignored it and just used Leadership to use various abilities. Otherwise you get 7th or 5th ed where it's Be Fearless or Suck.

So, I looked over the mission rules a bit closer. Here are my general impressions:

• Kill points seem like they are extremely dependent on your list to max out. It wouldn't be hard to ensure that no one could score more than 9-10 points even if they kill all relevant units. It seems like they're more or less a counter for unit spam—whether Titanic Knight spam, vehicle spam, or body spam.

Well that just sucks if you're a faction that has to spam cuz that's your entire thing. Orks and Nids come to mind for this. SO MSU has the advantage here (aka Marines)

• All shown primary objectives required controlling a number of objectives at the beginning of your turn. This means a mix of durability and bodies on the ground will be desired, and that seems a bit rough to ensure... outside Space Marines.

Well, at least Death Guard Pozwalkers are still in, maybe Tzanagors.

• While We Stand, We Fight could, in armies who can have high-survivability-sub-9-wounds characters (like Guilliman), be a staple. 15 VP for untargetable and durable characters seems fairly strong. On a related note, if this does become common, it means that horde armies are less worried about Thin Their Ranks, since if it's 15 points either way, who cares?

The only Horde that has really tough characters is Death Guard. Ork's can Kinda get to that point, but we are more worried about getting our KFF Meks and Shokk Attack Meks out, and those are a priority target. Nids have a similar problem.

• It's really, really hard to outrange 30"-36" gun-castles.

We figured this would be a problem.

• Thousand Sons and Grey Knights just got hilariously shafted by the existence of the Abhor the Witch objective, which is basically handing an opponent without psykers 15 free VP. Psyker non-characters can't contribute to Warpcraft at all and just give up points.

Well that's just mean.

[hamishspence]

Sweet Lord why do they have 3 Wounds? Are they in Gravis Armor or something?

Yes - look closely at the feet, and the "hood" around the helmet and you can see the Gravis styling.

[Blackhawk748]

Yes - look closely at the feet, and the "hood" around the helmet and you can see the Gravis styling.

Ok, so either Fire Dragons have to go down a lot in points, or they need to go up, cuz a bunch of T5 3W with basically better MultiMeltas is a bit nuts when compared to other options in other armies.

[LansXero]

Only got as far as "new CP is great because you can get more during the game". Yeah, 1CP / round is going to make such a huge difference Im sure. This is scripted shill dribble, with some non-criticisms to point to when called out.

[Renegade Paladin]

Having an extra command point can make a lot of difference. That said, you're otherwise not wrong; they even said so themselves.

Greg: I love the bullet points and have already adjusted to skipping the main text and only reading them.

TheChirurgeon: Extremely powerful EVP of Sales energy right there.

Edit: I was just reading through the core rules concepts pages again because I know I skimmed, and noticed that the plasma pistol listed on the Assault Intercessors datasheet only kills the bearer on an unmodified roll of 1.

[Keraunograf]

One thing someone I know pointed out... There doesn't seem to be something saying that a Psycher can't cast Smite as many times as they want to. There's a general rule for not casting other psychic powers multiple times in a turn across your entire army, and then one that says that Smite ignores this, but nothing that says you can't Smite on the same unit lots.

[Turalisj]

One thing someone I know pointed out... There doesn't seem to be something saying that a Psycher can't cast Smite as many times as they want to. There's a general rule for not casting other psychic powers multiple times in a turn across your entire army, and then one that says that Smite ignores this, but nothing that says you can't Smite on the same unit lots.

It's already beeneen said elsewhere that that and the save thing will be faq'd asap

[LansXero]

It's already beeneen said elsewhere that that and the save thing will be faq'd asap

Day 1 FAQ and Errata is the last thing you want when you launch with a hyped up Limited Collector Edition of the rulebook. It ****s on those who got it as it becomes invalid as soon as they get it

[Turalisj]

Nah, you're right, no game has ever needed day 1 FAQ, ever. Every game made that isn't 40k is the epitome of perfect.

[Fable Wright]

One thing someone I know pointed out... There doesn't seem to be something saying that a Psycher can't cast Smite as many times as they want to. There's a general rule for not casting other psychic powers multiple times in a turn across your entire army, and then one that says that Smite ignores this, but nothing that says you can't Smite on the same unit lots.

This is true. If you have 7 double-casting units, then you would be automatically have wasted manifestations if you couldn't double manifest smite.

This does make smite-modifiers like Zoanthropes slightly better. Being able to double smite at 2d3 wounds per smite is solid. Though it sounds like Zoanthropes might be losing their 3++ in the near future, so it's not much of a consolation.

[Blackhawk748]

Nah, you're right, no game has ever needed day 1 FAQ, ever. Every game made that isn't 40k is the epitome of perfect.

A video game is one thing, and I still find large Day 1 patches incredibly annoying. It's another when it's a Limited Edition book that is getting things FAQed that should have been obvious on a first read-through.

This is why I don't by Limited Edition stuff

[Cheesegear]

Only got as far as "new CP is great because you can get more during the game".
This is scripted shill dribble, with some non-criticisms to point to when called out.

Since you didn't read it.

Spoiler: Cheesegear's Read

Show

I like the presentation.
I like the presentation.
I like the presentation.
I like the presentation.
Nothing.
Rolled the FAQs in the main rulebook, and solved some of the problems of 8th Ed.
I like the presentation.
I like the presentation.


I like the presentation.
Detachments and Reserves have been cleaned up.
CPs being even, regardless of army or Faction, is nice. CPs are not even. Read your Codecies.
I like the presentation, and GW has more, clearer nouns now.
More Stratagems.
More Stratagems!
Hopefully small games work now.
Yeah. Hopefully small games work, now.
8th Ed. bad, 9th Ed. good.
9th Ed. good.
Hopefully, small games work, now. Yay, Crusade.


Secondary Objectives don't work and going first is an almost insurmountable advantage.
Mission design is totally wrong.
Mission design is flawed.
GW had three years to learn about Mission design, and this is what they came up with? ...Going first is an insurmountable advantage.
Wait for FAQs.
Tying VPs to paint score is dumb.
Tying VPs to paint score is dumb.
Tying VPs to paint score lets people gate-keep. Anyone who's reasonable will ignore it. But someone wont.
Tying VPs to paint score forces people to paint. Also, what's to stop people breaking Crusade?
Tying VPs to paint score makes it a gaming mechanism, rather than a hobby mechanism. It doesn't encourage painting. It forces it. Leading to more, but worse (i.e; People will do it fast and lazily to 'get it out of the way.') hobby, not better hobby.
Tying VPs to paint score leads to gate-keeping and hurts new players, and old players developing new armies.


Storm Shields are weird.
Storm Shields are weird.
Removing Prepared Positions from the game means going first is an insurmountable advantage, and Blast is presented badly.
Blast isn't going to do what people think it does, because it just makes people take smaller units.
Storm Shields are weird. Wait for FAQs.
Faster games with bad Scoring mechanics feels bad, man.
Faster games feels bad, man. But at least Moon Base Klasius is awesome!
Forcing people to pay for Day 1 Chapter Approved and a Tournament Pack is gross. Yeah. It is.
GW included Sororitas in the trailer for representation, but then left them out everywhere else? ...Thanks, GW.


Missions are bad. Wait for FAQ.
"...new painting requirement is absolutely asinine." Unquote! That sounds exactly like something I'd say!
Missions are bad. Wait for FAQ. New terrain rules will make boards look less same-y. But, all Terrain will still have the same rules, because only Obscuring matters.
Wait for FAQ.
The idea of Secondaries are good. Addding Actions 'open up design space'. Primary Objectives don't work, and the faster games make it worse. Reserves will actually make your army worse, not better.


Crusade has potential.
GW can't write Narrative Missions to save themselves. Hopefully Crusade does...Something.
GW can't write Narrative Missions to save themselves. Hopefully Crusade does...Something.
GW can't write Narrative Missions to save themselves. Crusade will be good.
GW can't write Narrative Missions to save themselves. Crusade will be good.
GW can't write Narrative Missions to save themselves. Crusade will be good.


I never want to play someone's Crusade army. But I like the idea.
Crusade is broken. But it can be fixed.
As a competitive player, I'm excited to break Crusade. I don't understand how you couldn't.
Crusade will be a mix between Open Play and Necromunda.
I'll probably never play Crusade. But I want to watch someone else do it. It seems complicated.
Crusade is great!
The idea of Crusade is good, and tying incentives to Forging a Narrative (Whatever happened to that phrase? GW doesn't use it anymore.) means that people are more likely to do it.


I'm excited!
I'm excited. There's more good than bad. Is there? I literally just read your article.
Not hyped yet. Wait for FAQs and 9th Ed. Codecies.
Core rules good. Crusade looks fun. Missions don't work. Wait for FAQs.
Core rules good.
Missions don't work. Wait for FAQs.
Crusade!
I want to try Crusade.

I vividly recall saying most of the above, over a week ago as WC articles came out. But I'm not on a website with a review copy. So I was wrong.

From what I've been reading and watching.
The positives, are positive. The general feel is good. I agree. Turning 4 pages into 40 pages, is very clear about how GW wants the game to be played. However,
The negatives - sometimes hidden in double speak, and sometimes hidden between two positives or around 'less bad' or ridiculous negatives (Why are people so mad about Paint Scores? ...'Cause they're not telling you that the game is almost unplayable) - are damning.

[Hootman]

>Basically anything from the last 5 pages about 9e.

Well, that's all a bit of a mess, isn't it?

I'm torn on trying to go to all the trouble to read through the spoiled rules myself; if they need as much patching as people have suggested, it's not really worth the effort at present. It'd be like trying to read the English language D&D PHB but without the section on stat generation, and all the rules for how magic works are written in Old English instead.

"There MIGHT be good rules in here somewhere, but I can't understand some really fundamental aspects of the game because your choice of language is actively stopping me from getting a clear picture of what is happening. And there seems to be a whole important section that was left out."

[Cheesegear]

I'm torn on trying to go to all the trouble to read through the spoiled rules myself...

TL;DR: Marines OP, Nerf Xenos*.
*But not Craftworlds, obviously.

Spoiler: StarCraft copies Warhammer copies StarCraft

Show

#New40K

Space Marines are a rapid strike insertion force.
Also, here's the complete opposite.

[Hootman]

TL;DR: Marines OP, Nerf Xenos*.
*But not Craftworlds, obviously.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I'm not too bothered if specifically Orks end up on the weaker end, because I take joy in the challenge of an uphill battle, andI want to feel like my generalship matters and the army can't just play itself. But that only works if the other armies are roughly equal (or at least come out in a Rock-Paper-Scissors arrangement), and GW isn't any good at that. At least, never on release day.

Space Marines are a rapid strike insertion force.
Also, here's the complete opposite.

On the bright side, my small force of Salamanders is getting those new OP melta-guys to...completely invalidate my MM Devastators. Huh. That sentence ended differently than in my head. Not that MM Devs were good necessarily, I just wanted to lean into the heat-type weapons, as one does with Salamanders.

But at least that silly Marine turret will probably look good as set dressing for wall-assaults or with an ork in the gunners position. So that's something.

[Cheesegear]

I'm not too bothered if specifically Orks end up on the weaker end, because I take joy in the challenge of an uphill battle, and I want to feel like my generalship matters and the army can't just play itself. But that only works if the other armies are roughly equal...

Blast means any unit with six or more models is really sad. Blast is also much more common that we thought it would be. It's also present on many 'Alternate fire' weapons (e.g; Missile Launchers), so most Factions can take a lot of Blast weapons that also deal decent damage to high-Toughness models (e.g; Vehicles), and not lose anything for it.

New unit coherancy rules mean that any unit with six or more models is pretty sad.

Vehicles no longer 'turn off' when Charged. Meaning that Vehicles with a lot of guns remain a significant threat, whether you Charge them or not.

You must now Engage every unit you declare a Charge against, or Charge fails. Basically, multi-Charges are dead.
Additionally, the age-old Tactic of...
- Declare a Charge against everything.
- Fight.
- Consolidate into next unit(s).
- Stratagem (Get Stuck In...I think?) to Fight again.
...is basically no longer valid. Then again, it's not valid for anyone. Still, it's a Tactic Orks relied on.

New Melee rules means you'll only be able to fight in two ranks - rather than 3 (or 4).

Morale is much more swingy...Should you fail the Morale test in the first place. It's unclear whether new Morale is good or bad. Most just feel it's unnecessary. But, it's also important to see how armies that ignore Morale, fare in the Errata Wars. So let's put a pin in Morale for Orks. If Orks don't remain at Leadership 30, there's gonna be massive problems. But, hopefully that doesn't happen. Because units of 30 already have the double hit of getting Blasted in the face and getting shafted by coherency rules.

New players in the coming months, will operate with the rules that they have. There's no issues. This is why the best time to start an army is with a new Codex or a new Edition, 'cause you're not bogged down with sunk cost fallacy; The problem doesn't really lie on whether or not a Faction is competitive (although, it absolutely does). The problems mostly lie in whether or not what you already have, is competitive:
IMO, Ork Builds that feature ~6x10 Gretchin and 3x5 Meganobz, will be fine.
Ork Builds that rely on Ork Mobs, are likely to end up in the toilet, as Thunderfire Cannons and Mortars go Super Saiyan.
I also think the one, max-sized unit of Lootas, is dead, and everyone should load up on Mek Guns.

...However, starting a new army has it's own problems...Like recessions and losing your job, being things that exist.
Not to mention that we're also being told to shell out for Chapter Approved on Day 1, too, in addition to the rulebook. Here's hoping the starter set (i.e; Not Indomitus) is very good.