Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXIX: Miracle on 39th Thread

[Cheesegear]

40K struggles with alpha strikes being a thing, and whoever goes first doing such crippling damage that they just win.

40K doesn't struggle with anything. The rules are the same for everyone. No-one is playing by different rules.
Bad players and/or bad lists struggle against alpha strikes.

[Forum Explorer]

40K doesn't struggle with anything. The rules are the same for everyone. No-one is playing by different rules.
Bad players and/or bad lists struggle against alpha strikes.

They are seen as a negative and unwelcome part of the game. And I seem to remember even you complaining about them in the past. You might have adapted to them, but that doesn't mean you like them. And GW has taken steps throughout 8th to mitigate alpha strikes, so clearly it's viewed as a problem.

[Avaris]

They are seen as a negative and unwelcome part of the game. And I seem to remember even you complaining about them in the past. You might have adapted to them, but that doesn't mean you like them. And GW has taken steps throughout 8th to mitigate alpha strikes, so clearly it's viewed as a problem.

^this. Just because alpha strikes exist, doesn’t mean they are an intended or desireable part of the game. The game designers seem to want to reduce their power, hence the moves we’re seeing. Reducing alpha strikes is a feature of 9th, not a bug.

[Cheesegear]

They are seen as a negative and unwelcome part of the game.

This came up the other day in one of my Facebook groups:

When a new player loses their first game(s), perhaps badly, the default reaction seems to be 'This game is unfair and bad', and how come not 'I am a new player, I misunderstood certain mechanics, and didn't understand what my opponent could do'?

And I seem to remember even you complaining about them in the past.

I complained about alpha striking from Reserves on Turn 1, 'cause there's (almost) nothing you can do about it.
That was errata'd out of the game for a reason.

Alpha striking, from one Deployment Zone to the other, is definitely defendable against, because you can read your opponent's army list, and you can see them deploy the unit.

You might have adapted to them, but that doesn't mean you like them.

When I play against a Tyranids opponent, and I see x20 Genestealers, <Kraken> and The Swarmlord, I think "Oh, okay."
Because one time I got demolished by it, and I learned how to play against it.

Rematches are a thing. You should never be 'caught' by the same gimmick twice. Especically if it's from an alpha strike, whose lessons hit hardest.

It's a reason why an Ork army can't be just Boyz, and Gretchin are required parts of lists, so the stuff that matters, can't be Charged.
This is why Guard bubble-wrap their Tanks with Infantry.
This isn't a new strategy. This kind of thing is blatantly obvious for anyone who plays more than one game a month... Oh. Now I get it.

As I have said twice in the last week (and now for a third time):
Tournament players - especially ITC ones - routinely play in formats where 'killing your opponent' is straight-up the easiest way to win games. Good players, with good lists, are playing against other good players, with good lists, where tabling your opponent is strongly encouraged... And they're not getting tabled.

[Destro_Yersul]

This came up the other day in one of my Facebook groups:

When a new player loses their first game(s), perhaps badly, the default reaction seems to be 'This game is unfair and bad', and how come not 'I am a new player, I misunderstood certain mechanics, and didn't understand what my opponent could do'?

There's a lot of reasons for this, and most of them aren't the new player's fault.

[Cheesegear]

There's a lot of reasons for this, and most of them aren't the new player's fault.

I refer you back to last week's conversation and player personalities:

I lost because:
a) My opponent was better than me, or
b) I am bad new at the game, or
c) Both.

Choose wisely.

[Destro_Yersul]

I refer you back to last week's conversation and player personalities:

I lost because:
a) My opponent was better than me, or
b) I am bad new at the game, or
c) Both.

Choose wisely.

None of which explains why 'this game is unfair and bad' is the default response to losing.

We know the actual answer is because the player is new. Or, in games with sufficiently high degree of randomness, sometimes you just lose because your rolls suck. But for sake of argument, let's assume that 'the rolls sucked to an improbable degree' is not the actual answer.

Why is it the default reaction? Why do people assume they should be able to come into anything and be passable at it on their first go? Why, when they are *not* passable on their first go, is the assumption that the fault must lie with something other than the individual? Losing feels bad, and picking out the actual reason for it (New player made mistakes) is way harder than blaming it on the game. I'm not sure how far into psychology you want to get with this conversation, but suffice it to say that a new player defaulting to 'this game is unfair' makes more sense than the alternative, and the player isn't to blame for it.

[Forum Explorer]

This came up the other day in one of my Facebook groups:

When a new player loses their first game(s), perhaps badly, the default reaction seems to be 'This game is unfair and bad', and how come not 'I am a new player, I misunderstood certain mechanics, and didn't understand what my opponent could do'?



I complained about alpha striking from Reserves on Turn 1, 'cause there's (almost) nothing you can do about it.
That was errata'd out of the game for a reason.

Alpha striking, from one Deployment Zone to the other, is definitely defendable against, because you can read your opponent's army list, and you can see them deploy the unit.



When I play against a Tyranids opponent, and I see x20 Genestealers, <Kraken> and The Swarmlord, I think "Oh, okay."
Because one time I got demolished by it, and I learned how to play against it.

Rematches are a thing. You should never be 'caught' by the same gimmick twice. Especically if it's from an alpha strike, whose lessons hit hardest.

It's a reason why an Ork army can't be just Boyz, and Gretchin are required parts of lists, so the stuff that matters, can't be Charged.
This is why Guard bubble-wrap their Tanks with Infantry.
This isn't a new strategy. This kind of thing is blatantly obvious for anyone who plays more than one game a month... Oh. Now I get it.

As I have said twice in the last week (and now for a third time):
Tournament players - especially ITC ones - routinely play in formats where 'killing your opponent' is straight-up the easiest way to win games. Good players, with good lists, are playing against other good players, with good lists, where tabling your opponent is strongly encouraged... And they're not getting tabled.

I notice that all your 'anti alpha strike' stuff is anti-melee. When your opponent has too much firepower and just shoots you off the board turn one (usually because someone messed up and didn't put enough LoS blocking terrain on the board) there really isn't anything you can do about it. Or if your opponent can just fill the board with too much indirect fire and slaughters all your important stuff anyways. Or most infuriatingly, can ignore both LoS and the character rule to target your important characters directly.

Tournament players have a much more limited roster of lists they can play, because if your list can't handle an alpha strike you just lose. Sometimes that's a matter of acceptance that some lists are just weaker. However sometimes an army gets buffed too much (Space Marines) and chokes out the competition because of that.

[Wraith]

Why is it the default reaction? Why do people assume they should be able to come into anything and be passable at it on their first go? Why, when they are *not* passable on their first go, is the assumption that the fault must lie with something other than the individual? Losing feels bad, and picking out the actual reason for it (New player made mistakes) is way harder than blaming it on the game. I'm not sure how far into psychology you want to get with this conversation, but suffice it to say that a new player defaulting to 'this game is unfair' makes more sense than the alternative, and the player isn't to blame for it.

Aaaaaaand back to Scrub Theory.

Despite the mildly insulting connotations from the name, it really does hold water most of the time. Admitting that you are bad at something is unpleasant, and avoiding unpleasant things is human nature.

While I'm not saying that you need to have 300IQ and be truly enlightened to throw off the shackles of your own ego and see things as they objectively are, I think it's a common stereotype that most new players to the game are a) male and b) teenagers or young adults. Admitting weakness is grossly taboo in most cultures, and particularly among young men who feel that they have something to prove. So it's not their fault that they are losers; it's the game's, for being unfair.

Alternatively, 40k might just be a common tipping point for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. People grow up playing boardgame and rolling dice, right? It's not hard or anything, is it? Let's try something a bit more challenging and give this "40k" a go, it's just dice and rulers it can't be that difficul-oh god why are there tyranids in my DZ on turn 1 what is happening this game is horrible!

[Destro_Yersul]

Aaaaaaand back to Scrub Theory.

Despite the mildly insulting connotations from the name, it really does hold water most of the time. Admitting that you are bad at something is unpleasant, and avoiding unpleasant things is human nature.

While I'm not saying that you need to have 300IQ and be truly enlightened to throw off the shackles of your own ego and see things as they objectively are, I think it's a common stereotype that most new players to the game are a) male and b) teenagers or young adults. Admitting weakness is grossly taboo in most cultures, and particularly among young men who feel that they have something to prove. So it's not their fault that they are losers; it's the game's, for being unfair.

Alternatively, 40k might just be a common tipping point for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. People grow up playing boardgame and rolling dice, right? It's not hard or anything, is it? Let's try something a bit more challenging and give this "40k" a go, it's just dice and rulers it can't be that difficul-oh god why are there tyranids in my DZ on turn 1 what is happening this game is horrible!

That, plus a slew of other psychology, plus some sociology, even beyond what you've noted. There's also probably some conflicting assumptions as to what should or shouldn't be possible. Bad game design is a thing that exists, after all. QED: Monopoly. After which point, you get down to debating whether or not Tyranids should be able to get to your DZ on turn 1, and the fact that they can is irrelevant to that discussion.

[Brookshw]

That, plus a slew of other psychology, plus some sociology, even beyond what you've noted. There's also probably some conflicting assumptions as to what should or shouldn't be possible. Bad game design is a thing that exists, after all. QED: Monopoly. After which point, you get down to debating whether or not Tyranids should be able to get to your DZ on turn 1, and the fact that they can is irrelevant to that discussion.

Your Carnifex landed on Boardwalk and ate my hotel. I fall back to Redding Railroad and shoot at you with my Basilisk from New York Avenue.......I kind of want to play that game....

Joking aside, I agree with Destro that there's more to the conversation that the boiled down options Cheese has suggested. Specifically, that the game design elements which favor certain factions is a real issue that has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread (as well as its predecessors). That the debate recently has centered on CPs and how they'll give the shaft to certain factions/tactics highlights this; though given past wisdom on the matter it seems like the solution should be somewhere along the lines of "switch to a non-CP burning faction if you want to win games".

[Wraith]

Your Carnifex landed on Boardwalk and ate my hotel. I fall back to Redding Railroad and shoot at you with my Basilisk from New York Avenue.......I kind of want to play that game....

The planet Monopoly is but one of millions in the Imperium of Man. From the lavish and opulent spires or Mayfair to the filthy, toxic slums of Old Kent Road, every soul is dediated to the glory of Him On Earth.

And then one day, the Giant Hat People invaded and occupied the planet's utilities, scoring d3+1 victory points. Little Silver Dogs OP, plz nerf

Joking aside, I agree with Destro that there's more to the conversation that the boiled down options Cheese has suggested. Specifically, that the game design elements which favor certain factions is a real issue that has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread (as well as its predecessors).

Every game has always favoured one faction or another, often deliberately, sometimes unexpectedly. 40k's biggest crime, to me, is that it doesn't make it clear to new players which is which and a single ill-informed and otherwise innocent decision can ruin an entire hobby experience.

Weirdly, another GW game Blood Bowl has always been up-front with it's tiered teams and people have always seemed to appreciate it. It's printed in the rulebook - "This team is intentionally harder to win with than others, choose wisely", and I can't help but think a more clearer version of this same message in 40k would do a lot to ease peoples grievances.
It wouldn't solve all of them, but if GW at least pretended that winning with Space Wolves or Necrons, compared to Space Marines or Guard, was difficult by design and signposted new players accordingly then people might not feel so angry about it.

[Cheesegear]

though given past wisdom on the matter it seems like the solution should be somewhere along the lines of "switch to a non-CP burning faction if you want to win games".

Switch to a Faction full of 1CP Stratagems that can be used on any unit in your army, rather than specific units, that your opponent can remove on Turn 1.
You also want to look for Stratagems that target multiple units at once; Current!Necrons' Methodical Destruction would be OP as **** in the new edition.

Little Silver Dogs OP, plz nerf

Community: Dog OP!
GW: Nerfs Top Hat.

It wouldn't solve all of them, but if GW at least pretended that winning with Space Wolves or Necrons, compared to Space Marines or Guard, was difficult by design and signposted new players accordingly then people might not feel so angry about it.

Here's the thing...It's almost assuredly not by design, that certain Factions and units are terrible. I genuinely think that whoever designed Space Wolves, thought that +1 to hit, and +1 to wound, are basically the same thing. I genuinely think that whoever wrote the Space Wolf Warlord Traits, thought that they were a good idea.

More than anything, it seems like luck, rather that skill, than any Codex comes out good. The only Codex you could argue that's designed to be better than the rest, is Space Marines. Certainly, we know at the start of the edition, part of the design process was to throw Marines in the dumpster to cater to the 'Marines are t3h sux' crowd. That worked... But turns out Marines make up a significant chunk of sales (who knew!?) and making your poster-Faction bad...Is bad business.

Why do you design bad rules?
"We design rules based on what the model looks like it should do."
...You're saying that it looks like the model should have bad rules?

[LansXero]

This came up the other day in one of my Facebook groups:

When a new player loses their first game(s), perhaps badly, the default reaction seems to be 'This game is unfair and bad', and how come not 'I am a new player, I misunderstood certain mechanics, and didn't understand what my opponent could do'?

Because their TO / Community dropped the ball. Yes, new players might bitch or be entitled, thats why you dont let them play unsupervised. While playing armchair coach during the game is bad, doing so after the game so the new player realizes what he could've done better or where the game started to snowball against them is important; learning doesnt happen from losing, it happens from dissecting the reasons for losing and figuring out what should've changed.

Practical example: Our friend Edwin played our friend Aaron as Guard for the first time. He loaded up on Basilisks because DoW with a tank commander and weapon teams (because, again, DoW). Aaron was playing a CSM melee list because he had a ton of Skorne models from before and they sort of pass as berserkers. Anyways, after 1 turn of Aaron making his saves, all artillery pieces and the tank are tied down in melee, with the weapon teams and infantry somewhere else in ruins with no LoS and no targets due to everything being tied up in melee. So that was a wipe out for good Edwin. Is melee OP? No, he deployed badly, and didnt adjust during this first movement phases even though it was clear what the other guy was going for. We went over it, used models to show how to screen, and how even when screened a charging unit can conga through it, so you need to keep terrain in mind, and how consolidation works, etc. In a vacuum, on his own, sure he wont see that and will feel it was all uphill. But why would he be left on his own? Why wouldnt anyone say something? Or at least his opponent?

Alpha striking, from one Deployment Zone to the other, is definitely defendable against, because you can read your opponent's army list, and you can see them deploy the unit.

This is also why "I deploy all my stuff then you deploy all your stuff" is trash. The old "1 unit at a time, whoever finishes first gets +1 to the start roll" was so much better, as it let you play around with what to deploy, where to do it and bait out the opponent with chaff units at the cost of being less likely to go first.

Rematches are a thing. You should never be 'caught' by the same gimmick twice. Especically if it's from an alpha strike, whose lessons hit hardest.

Even if you always play the same list, you wont necessiraly play on the same table, deployment or mission so this isnt even about getting new stuff, just growing as a player.

This isn't a new strategy. This kind of thing is blatantly obvious for anyone who plays more than one game a month... Oh. Now I get it.

While math can provide a ton of solutions, experience does play a huge part; the mathhammer / battle report generals will decry things they dont actually experience because it adds up one way in their minds but there are so many moving factors (terrain, mission, player leanings) that they ignore due to lacking actual games played.

40k's biggest crime, to me, is that it doesn't make it clear to new players which is which and a single ill-informed and otherwise innocent decision can ruin an entire hobby experience.

This isnt really valid in a world with the internet in a game that is so analyzed and picked over and that is played against another human you can bounce impressions from. Find a local club, LGS, GW store or an online discussion board (not hype pieces) so you can get a better view of what to buy and how to play. Hell, you'll do that when shopping for computer parts, tools or a new toaster, why not with something even more expensive than those that you'll be using for longer?

the solution should be somewhere along the lines of "switch to a non-CP burning faction if you want to win games".

If this was Index time, absolutely. However, new books are not coming out, so what to switch to is extremely limited; therefore, the play environment gets narrowed down and reduced thus becomes stagnant and boring. Now, GW will do whatever it wants, its their game; the baffling part is people celebrating a more stale and solved gamestate or celebrating that people will quit for a few months / years.

Admitting weakness is grossly taboo in most cultures, and particularly among young men who feel that they have something to prove.

My old must be showing, but how do you ever get good at anything if you dont admit you suck when you start? Soccer, skateboard, biking, dancing (ugh), hell even punching other guys in the face. You admit you suck, fall on your face, scrape your knees and elbows, ask friends for help, for tips, get together to practice and get better. Hell even for MOBAs, you read guides, you set sparring matches, you copy the pros, you realize you suck for 4 out of 5 positions and "main" the one you suck at the least. Where does this "young people never admit defeat" assumption come from? Sure there are a bunch of entitled morons who think they're god's gift to whatever they're doing, and there are those blessed with talent for whom everything is easy, but the large majority at some point had to realize "hey, I have two left feet and make a fool out of myself at the club, I suck at this but I wanna do it to get chicks" and move past it, usually not by themselves.

I notice that all your 'anti alpha strike' stuff is anti-melee. When your opponent has too much firepower and just shoots you off the board turn one (usually because someone messed up and didn't put enough LoS blocking terrain on the board) there really isn't anything you can do about it. Or if your opponent can just fill the board with too much indirect fire and slaughters all your important stuff anyways. Or most infuriatingly, can ignore both LoS and the character rule to target your important characters directly.

His troops, which feed him CPs, aren't shooting across long edges turn 1 from their deployment zone. His HQs and force multipliers likely aren't either. There are specific units which are dangerous, which you can outrange or hide out of LoS keeping in mind threat ranges considering if they will or wont move. Yes, this is also a function of terrain, but that doesnt mean changing the terrain rules, it means building tables to give both side an sporting chance and not placing objectives somewhere stupid like on the base floor of a 12" tall magic box. Indirect fire is often low S or low AP or low BS; work that to your advantage; getting sniped by a DaJumped Mek sucks of course, but your characters need to be deployed in a way that making that happen leads to overexposure. Many people fall into the mistake of placing their stuff where they need to be turn 1, as if they wont move. Why? What do reroll auras do for you while being shot? There are many common pitfalls in table design and deployment methods / habits that exacerbat the existing issue with frontloaded firepower, but its not something inherent to the game

More importantly:

^this. Just because alpha strikes exist, doesn’t mean they are an intended or desireable part of the game. The game designers seem to want to reduce their power, hence the moves we’re seeing. Reducing alpha strikes is a feature of 9th, not a bug.

Surely you dont mean the 9th edition that lets me spam reapers without having to waste points on guardians, rangers or dire avengers has "less alpha strike" as a feature, right? You dont mean the 9th who is about to give Knight Crusader spam same CPs as a guard brigade is somehow less conducive to blasting people off the table, do you?

Taking each change and dissecting it on a vacuum is pointless. Early 8th already showed us what a detachmentless game will shift to: spam the good stuff, forget anything else, blast other to nothing. "less alpha strikes is a feature" yeah right.

[Requizen]

Front-loading your opening turns' CPs, makes sense, 'cause that's when you have the most stuff on the board, and thus, when you have the most options.
WTF are you going to use '5CPs per turn' on, on Turn 5, when all your stuff is dead or hamstrung?

Parcelling out CPs, leads to, in general, weaker opening turns, with a stronger late-game.
However, any general will tell you, a strong late-game is meaningless if there is no late game.

Well, doesn't that problem solve itself?

The late game will include more models if there aren't as many CP in the early game, as one player can't burn all their stratagems to table their opponent in the early game. So, both players should, in theory, have more models late game with which to utilize those CPs.

[Cheesegear]

Yes, new players might bitch or be entitled, thats why you dont let them play unsupervised. While playing armchair coach during the game is bad, doing so after the game so the new player realizes what he could've done better or where the game started to snowball against them is important; learning doesnt happen from losing, it happens from dissecting the reasons for losing and figuring out what should've changed.

Excellent answer. Which ties into what you type later.

This is also why "I deploy all my stuff then you deploy all your stuff" is trash. The old "1 unit at a time, whoever finishes first gets +1 to the start roll" was so much better, as it let you play around with what to deploy, where to do it and bait out the opponent with chaff units at the cost of being less likely to go first.

And the reason they changed it, is due to time.
This is why alternating activations don't work at scale.

Even if you always play the same list, you wont necessiraly play on the same table, deployment or mission so this isnt even about getting new stuff, just growing as a player.

The idea is that a Tyranid player will almost always try to bum-rush Genestealers up the board, regardless of Mission, regardless of terrain. It's a tactic that isn't dependent on the board, it's just what the unit does. The unit has literally one use, and that use works almost every time, so your opponent is going to do it, every time.

While math can provide a ton of solutions, experience does play a huge part; the mathhammer / battle report generals will decry things they dont actually experience because it adds up one way in their minds but there are so many moving factors (terrain, mission, player leanings) that they ignore due to lacking actual games played.

This is why playing games and mathhammer is important. This is why playing to your meta, is important.

Experience: "My opponent plays Iron Hands. He has Units X, Y and Z. I have trouble trying to crack Units Y and Z. X gives me no trouble."
Mathhammer: "Now that I know I can't really deal with Y and Z, time to filter through my Codex to find some viable/efficient options..."

Experience tells you that <Kraken> Genestealers can be in your DZ on Turn 1.
Mathhammer tells you which of your units can possibly not die to Genestealers and/or beat them in Melee.

I suppose that experience tells you that board control means that your opponent can't set up after Deployment within 9" of any of your units. Mathhammer doesn't really have any application there.

Hell, you'll do that when shopping for computer parts, tools or a new toaster...

Toy soldiers aren't serious business.
...But watch me get real mad when what I buy doesn't work.

the baffling part is people celebrating a more stale and solved gamestate or celebrating that people will quit for a few months / years.

Expectation: "All the power-gamers will leave, hooray!"
Reality: "Our gaming community was basically cut in half."

My old must be showing, but how do you ever get good at anything if you dont admit you suck when you start?

QFT.
The first step to improvement is admitting you need to improve in the first place.

Surely you dont mean the 9th edition that lets me spam reapers without having to waste points on guardians, rangers or dire avengers has "less alpha strike" as a feature, right? You dont mean the 9th who is about to give Knight Crusader spam same CPs as a guard brigade is somehow less conducive to blasting people off the table, do you?

Yeah. 3x3 Eliminators is bad. But Dark Reapers come in squads of 10.
Hopefully, Objective Secured still matters in 9th Ed., and Objectives hand out like, 5VPs each and Kill Points only give 1.

Early 8th already showed us what a detachmentless game will shift to:

Open Play is balanced because everyone can just take what they want, and everything that everyone wants, are all equally balanced.

The late game will include more models if there aren't as many CP in the early game, as one player can't burn all their stratagems...

Negative.
Not all units need Stratagems to be effective.
Intercessors with Stalker Bolt Rifles need 3CPs to be super-effective. Eliminators or Scouts need 0CPs.

[LansXero]

Well, doesn't that problem solve itself?

The late game will include more models if there aren't as many CP in the early game

less fire & fade, less celestial shield, less lightning reflexes, forget about Pathfinders... Eldar becomes much less survivable with a lack of CPs early on, having to choose between psychic consistency, re-rolls or defense. Im sure this isnt only true for Eldar, so what this does in fact is just skew things hard to one side, it doesnt necessarily means anything for alpha strike.

And the reason they changed it, is due to time.
This is why alternating activations don't work at scale.

Makes sense that it'd be too much for all 5 - 6 rounds of the game; however as a one-time deal before every match, its not THAT time consuming, more so if when timed you start the clock at the start of deployment, not start of round 1.

[Requizen]

Matched Play update

-4 game sizes, from 500 to 3000 points, showing CP starting points
-Built in choosable secondaries
-Missions with set objective markers (AoS players everyone rejoice)
-Majority of point values to up, as to decrease the overall model count in game
-App, probably paid. AoS one for points is a few bucks, probably the same.

[Cheesegear]

-Built in choosable secondaries

We're not even hiding the ITC's influence anymore.
Great. Choose all the Kill Point ones. Win games. All hail our Marine, T'au and Craftworld overlords.

Majority of point values to up, as to decrease the overall model count in game

Or, y'know you could make the new standard 1750 or 1850, or 1500?

GW Marketing Hype
...a global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’.

FFS GW.
It'll take less than a week.

[LansXero]

We're not even hiding the ITC's influence anymore.
Great. Choose all the Kill Point ones. Win games. All hail our Marine, T'au and Craftworld overlords.

1 killpoint / model seems a terrible thing that should not exist or at least should be capped way lower than 15.

Or, y'know you could make the new standard 1750 or 1850, or 1500?

High baseline points mean that when new codices come out with "readjusted" points we go back to the merry go round again. "you can use your old books" my ass, they could at least be honest and say "we are bringing them up so we can feign shock and bring them back down with some paid expansion later on".

[Blackhawk748]

Ok, so the points cost adjustments will be free right? Otherwise me "being able to use my old Codex" is a lie.

Also, what is with these "extra actions?" They talk about a bunch of random examples, but are they just missing dependant or can I always drop a homing beacon? Are they universal or faction specific?

I don't have an issue with upping the points, as increased granularity is good, I'm just curious what the "new normal" is going to be. We gonna got Fantasy with 3k or are most gonna stick with 2k?

[LeSwordfish]

Also, what is with these "extra actions?" They talk about a bunch of random examples, but are they just missing dependant or can I always drop a homing beacon? Are they universal or faction specific?

Sounds a lot like they're just objective things and so defined per objective.

[Fable Wright]

We're not even hiding the ITC's influence anymore.
Great. Choose all the Kill Point ones. Win games. All hail our Marine, T'au and Craftworld overlords.

*sad tyranid noises*

Or, y'know you could make the new standard 1750 or 1850, or 1500?

Honestly, more modular point values is a plus in theory. If everything's cost is increased by 1.5x and the standard tournament game size is 3000, you get a finer-tuned brush.

That said, GW is not good enough at balance to make use of this granularity.

[Cheesegear]

Warhammer Community Hype Machine
Yet even though the missions each share a primary objective, the secondary objectives are asymmetrical, and are actually chosen by the players themselves.

Unless the Primary Mission is worth more than Secondaries, the Primaris are meaningless.
...Nope. It caps at 15. Same as Secondaries.
Hell, in the Mission they show...The Secondary caps at 10. lol.

Are you running a sneaky Raven Guard army? Choose secondaries that score victory points for planting homing beacons or infiltrating the enemy’s deployment zones...

Why would I do that, when Raven Guard Thunderfires or Eliminators can rack Kill Points, instead? Kill Points are the worst objectives for game design, because it straight up encourages people to do what already solidifies wins. By removing your opponent's models, you significantly increase your chance of winning the game. By tying removing your opponent's models to the literal way of winning the mission, you undermine every 'story' and 'narrative' you can possible think of, because 'Kill Things' is the easiest - and thus, best - thing to do.

This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.

But I can clearly read that Kill Points are a thing. Most people, with strong 'Turn 1' armies, will wipe you off the board unless you're fighting back.
This is the exact opposite of what you're trying to do. ITC has already proven this.

Another new feature is a cap on victory points you can earn from each mission element. This makes for closer, more exciting games. In the past, a slower-starting army or one without a strong ‘alpha strike’ risked falling irrevocably behind their opponent.

No. It's a rubber-band mechanic that prevents your opponent from totally dominating you, even though they are.
If your opponent racks 10 Kill Points in the first two turns...You know that represents 10 of your units not on the board, right? You can't recover from that. It doesn't matter that your opponent has reached max points, when you yourself, can't score points at all.
Turn 1; 7-1
Turn 2; 15-3
Turn 3; 15-4
Turn 4; 15-4
If your opponent is dominating you that badly. They're still dominating you, even if they can't win more.
Again. This is what we see in the ITC. If one person is winning convincingly anyway, then they have already won. We don't see this at the tournament level because it doesn't happen to good players and/or lists. But it does happen in the smaller ponds who don't build their lists right, and who don't understand that 'Castle up, son, and rack KPs.' is the easiest and safest way to earn VPs.

Everyone who plays ITC, or who reads how the ITC format works, knows exactly what 'Choosing Your Own Secondaries' means.
I do not have my hopes up for 9th Ed.
I hate ITC.

Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side.

You know all those toys you bought? When we consistently made everything cheaper so that you would have to buy more models to make up the points difference?
Yeah. Ignore that.

This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience.

Ignore the price hike.
Ignore the recession (Just today Australian Government announced that recession was imminent, if not already happening).

It also means there’s room for more granularity when establishing how powerful one unit or ability is compared to another

Excel spreadsheets say you're wrong.

and a global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’.

Change the existing values in your existing spreadsheets where necessary. It will take less than half a day. If the internet bands together - and it does - Mathhammer will be solved in a week or so. All's you're doing is hitting the reset button, and woefully misunderstanding how fast the internet moves, and how god-damned easy making a Spreadsheet is. Especially when the new Spreadsheets are almost definitely merely variations on what you've already made.

Furthermore; "You can still use your old Codex."
Bulls***.

The new app will do a number of things to assist players with their games, but one of the most useful will be the ability to build army lists using the updated points values and Detachments. We’ll have more on the Warhammer 40,000 app soon, so watch this space!

...That's the only thing of value that's been written.

1 killpoint / model seems a terrible thing that should not exist or at least should be capped way lower than 15.

I think it's more like ITC's Reaper, where it's 1 KP per 10 models, Vehicles count as 10.

*sad tyranid noises*

If Thin Their Ranks is what I think it is, yes. Hopefully Repulsors get a hard-nerf.
Otherwise Venomthropes and Onslaught still work fine.

[Avaris]

Regarding kill points, just to point out we don’t yet know the full equation. The Community site says ‘add 1 to tally each time a MODEL is destroyed, or 10 to the tally if ???’ We don’t know how that tally translates to victory points, which will effect how easy it is to score those VP and how much it warps things in the ways described above.

Edit: though being equivalent to the Reaper objective mentioned would make sense.

[Cheesegear]

Regarding kill points, just to point out we don’t yet know the full equation.

I have no reason not to believe that they're taking significant inspiration - or straight up just lifting - from this document (you'll notice that Maneuver Secondaries are way harder to do, and very, very few players pick them).
Mike being involved should be a clue.

It's interesting that ITC's Reaper is 20 models. But GW's Thin Their Ranks looks like 10, and is significantly easier.
Maybe I'm wrong about Tyranids being viable if TTR is only 10 wounds/models for a VP.

[LansXero]

Regarding kill points, just to point out we don’t yet know the full equation. The Community site says ‘add 1 to tally each time a MODEL is destroyed, or 10 to the tally if ???’ We don’t know how that tally translates to victory points, which will effect how easy it is to score those VP and how much it warps things in the ways described above.

Since its models and no units its stupid easy to pump the tally. The 10 is likely for 10W+ models, and whatever conversion of tally -> VPs doesnt matter because you wont ever not kill your enemy's models. Why would you play pacifism 40k, so that through 5 turns they will shoot and hack at you unopposed? So you will always take kill point secondary as its something that you need to do anyways, and since its so granular that even plinking 1 gaunt away from a horde adds to the tally, its never "wasted"

I think it's more like ITC's Reaper, where it's 1 KP per 10 models, Vehicles count as 10.

[LeSwordfish]

That tells you how models killed counts towards the tally, but not how the tally counts towards kill points.

[Cheesegear]

Thin Their Ranks

I meant VP.
10 KPs = 1 VP, is what I think it is. And I expect it to get nerfed the instand Ork and Tyranid players get wiped out of the meta. ITC had to nerf Reaper, too. IIRC. I remember it being 1VP per 10 model units, and Guard cheesing the game by adding Mortars to their Infantry Squad to make 9-model units and thus denying the KP, and then ITC made it 20 models, from anywhere.

[Avaris]

Since its models and no units its stupid easy to pump the tally. The 10 is likely for 10W+ models, and whatever conversion of tally -> VPs doesnt matter because you wont ever not kill your enemy's models. Why would you play pacifism 40k, so that through 5 turns they will shoot and hack at you unopposed? So you will always take kill point secondary as its something that you need to do anyways, and since its so granular that even plinking 1 gaunt away from a horde adds to the tally, its never "wasted"

Point is, at the extreme end, if one point on the tally was 1 vp, everyone always takes it and everyone always achieves it, as you only need to kill 15 models to max out your points, so you get less return from just focussing on killing. Conversely, if you needed 50 tally points to score 1 vp, no one would take it, as you just can’t kill that many. I suspect Cheesegear is correct at it being 10 per VP, but it also matters how many other secondaries you can choose, as only one can come from the ‘No mercy, no respite’ group (which look to be the kill points)