So, space marines... (warning, I'll rant) :)

A space-marine playing friend of mine told med the following rumors, and if true sound nice

Scouts are elites
Aggressors no more dubbeled shoot
Grav devastators D2 no re-roll strat
Dreadnoughts only vehicle core
primaries vehicles lost “Fly”
Thunder-fire guns -1s
Impulser Nerf to 5++

Apply salt as needed

The book is out and you can see every unit , its rules, and its points on many youtube videos right now

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-review-codex-space-marines-9th-edition/

Lol...



Looking forward to our new 1 CP stratagem that lets a Haemonculus bring a Talos/Cronos back!

That... that has to be FAQd.

Its full strength and 1/2 strength no? So it only works if its a unit of 2 and 1 dies, or a unit of 3 and 2 dies. Correct?

Not half strength, just less than full.

Not only is that rule utterly stupid mechanically - auto-resurrecting an 8W model for 1CP, it's even more stupid thematically. Even if the apothecary can put the crew of the ATV back on their feet does he also have a Techmarine in his back pocket to repair the actual ATV? Completely ridiculous!

If nothing else, it seems strange to me that SMs are now easier to reassemble than Necrons.

I like the part about the Invader exploding and being brought back. Lots of super glue in that Narthecanium.

The Power Creep is real. I had hoped that the first few codicies would be underpowered, then the Power Creep would kick in mid-cycle (like last edition).

Looks like 9th will start out with the Power Creep, then mid-cycle they will start to tone it down.

120 points for 3 Eliminators is just bonkers. A unit of 5 will take out basically anything when the pop out of Outflank.

It does make sense that Aggressors got the double shot removed, looks like GW is trying to get rid of that mechanic. Now if only they didnt immediately switch to that "max __ damage per phase" mechanic from the C'Tans/Ghaz...

fisheyes wrote:

It does make sense that Aggressors got the double shot removed, looks like GW is trying to get rid of that mechanic. Now if only they didnt immediately switch to that "max __ damage per phase" mechanic from the C'Tans/Ghaz...

They didn't get rid of it. They moved that ability to Eradicators, with the qualification they shoot the same target.


I don't know about power creep, as so much Flavor of the Month. Aggressors, Centurions, Eliminators and Primaris tanks have all taken bug hits. Meanwhile, Outriders, Invader ATVs, Bladeguard and Eradicators are all extremely powerful. Not surprisingly, these are the latest models.

I'd say Melta has gotten so out of hand that all vehicles are now on notice. There are some silly things like the Gladiator turret with 24 shots. Overall, 40K is moving in a strange direction.

TBF, it has always moved in strange directions.

More than a little salty that with the new FAQ we didnt get the new Melta rule or flamer range increase. I hear that Craftworld+Tau got the flamer range increase (but not Melta).

fisheyes wrote:

TBF, it has always moved in strange directions.

More than a little salty that with the new FAQ we didnt get the new Melta rule or flamer range increase. I hear that Craftworld+Tau got the flamer range increase (but not Melta).

Unfortunately, I think they limited it to weapons with the exact same name as ones upgraded in the Marine book.

Its GW showing they hate Xenos, there is no reason not to translate literally the same guns b.c they have a slight different name, FFS for 25 years all flamers and metlas had it as a core rule even though their names were different.... GW drop the ball hard.

amishprn86 wrote:

Its GW showing they hate Xenos, there is no reason not to translate literally the same guns b.c they have a slight different name, FFS for 25 years all flamers and metlas had it as a core rule even though their names were different.... GW drop the ball hard.

Pfff. Next you'll be saying that GW should do what every other wargame company does and release their rules as free PDF documents, so that they can release them all at the same time, rather than making some players wait months or even years to get their book.

amishprn86 wrote:

Its GW showing they hate Xenos, there is no reason not to translate literally the same guns b.c they have a slight different name, FFS for 25 years all flamers and metlas had it as a core rule even though their names were different.... GW drop the ball hard.

I believe that GW is deeply embarrassed by 6th ed Taudar. They want to avoid at all costs a meta that marginalizes Imperium armies. Every so often there's a Riptide army, or a Eldar Air Wing army that rises to the top. But, GW goes out of the way to put a stop to that.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Its GW showing they hate Xenos, there is no reason not to translate literally the same guns b.c they have a slight different name, FFS for 25 years all flamers and metlas had it as a core rule even though their names were different.... GW drop the ball hard.

Pfff. Next you'll be saying that GW should do what every other wargame company does and release their rules as free PDF documents, so that they can release them all at the same time, rather than making some players wait months or even years to get their book have a semi-balanced game

But if they had all rules online, how could they make a profit from selling codices?
Not that the codices are substantial to the revenue stream of GW. And disregard that you could still have codices that work as campaign and crusade books.

Sorry for uttering such ridiculous thoughts of heresy. Who am I to question GW about their brilliant sales strategy.

False Son wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Its GW showing they hate Xenos, there is no reason not to translate literally the same guns b.c they have a slight different name, FFS for 25 years all flamers and metlas had it as a core rule even though their names were different.... GW drop the ball hard.

I believe that GW is deeply embarrassed by 6th ed Taudar.  They want to avoid at all costs a meta that marginalizes Imperium armies.  Every so often there's a Riptide army, or a Eldar Air Wing army that rises to the top.  But, GW goes out of the way to put a stop to that.

Nah that was 7th, 6th was Blood Angles and Necrons, or CWE/DE deathstars, and 6th was bad b.c the core rules were so the worst in any game I have ever played.

amishprn86 wrote:

Nah that was 7th, 6th was Blood Angles and Necrons, or CWE/DE deathstars, and 6th was bad b.c the core rules were so the worst in any game I have ever played.

The rules right now are pretty bad, saved only because there have been some new ideas, like emphasis on objectives that challenge the stale assumptions of what 40K. But, there are some things, like the smaller board size, higher ppm, and overemphasis on models being the metric of things. Objective control, Morale tests, Attrition Tests, all while the game is moving in a sharper distinction between MEQs (over half of all players) and everyone else.

I like a certain amount of minutia in my games. But, i've given up on knowing my opponent's rules. I will pull up a reference for their Stratagems. That puts me at a disadvantage at tournaments. And, there's a gap that can be exploited by ruthless opponents, or mistakes made without both players being familiar with both army rules. Just think about how absurd our own rules are. In a typical 2K force you have Raiding Force and up to 6 custom traits in play, with possibly Combat Drugs, too. The level of rules crunch, along with the rapidly evolving meta is a part time job onto itself.

False Son wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Nah that was 7th, 6th was Blood Angles and Necrons, or CWE/DE deathstars, and 6th was bad b.c the core rules were so the worst in any game I have ever played.

The rules right now are pretty bad, saved only because there have been some new ideas, like emphasis on objectives that challenge the stale assumptions of what 40K.  But, there are some things, like the smaller board size, higher ppm, and overemphasis on models being the metric of things.  Objective control, Morale tests, Attrition Tests, all while the game is moving in a sharper distinction between MEQs (over half of all players) and everyone else.

I like a certain amount of minutia in my games.  But, i've given up on knowing my opponent's rules.  I will pull up a reference for their Stratagems.  That puts me at a disadvantage at tournaments.  And, there's a gap that can be exploited by ruthless opponents, or mistakes made without both players being familiar with both army rules.  Just think about how absurd our own rules are.  In a typical 2K force you have Raiding Force and up to 6 custom traits in play, with possibly Combat Drugs, too.  The level of rules crunch, along with the rapidly evolving meta is a part time job onto itself.

No 6th was 100x worst than 8th and 9th could even have been. Its literally no contest, 9th is a god send compare to 6th.

I'm highly enjoying 9th, even though i would like a few more details and changes, its more fun than core 7th and core 8th. (again 6th is the worst so everything is better than 6th)

I play events, even major GT's with 200-300 mans (well not right now with covid) 8th/9th with stratagems isn't bad at all, its no different than special rules on units from 3rd-7th. Its actually EASIER now b.c you can look up all the rules and ask what are the stratagems to look out for.

9th events has been the most fun for events for me sense 5th. (other than i don't have my corsairs anymore....)

IIRC, 6th and 7th were basically the same thing. Flyers/Aircraft got released at the end of 6th (with Necrons), and they needed to update the rules to reflect the new (and OP) type of unit.

The only real difference I recall is that the psykic abilities changed, where everyone was picking from the same table in 7th. Remember Invisibility? *shudders*

Every edition of the game is better than the one before it. My memory was that 6th was not as bad as 7th (due to the broken things that got added throughout 7th)

fisheyes wrote:

IIRC, 6th and 7th were basically the same thing. Flyers/Aircraft got released at the end of 6th (with Necrons), and they needed to update the rules to reflect the new (and OP) type of unit.

The only real difference I recall is that the psykic abilities changed, where everyone was picking from the same table in 7th. Remember Invisibility? *shudders*

Every edition of the game is better than the one before it. My memory was that 6th was not as bad as 7th (due to the broken things that got added throughout 7th)

No 6th and 7th had a few large changes that are very important to how the game plays.

HP were even worst in 6th compare to 7th
Open top was literally a death trap with Flamers and Grenades able to hit units inside
1/2 the books were updated so even worst deathstars were out
Flyers had literally no counter as there was also no anti air
Forts were much stronger, cheap, and auto included
MC's didn't have Stomp attacks making them literally pointless in melee
Ally chart was insane, BA with Necrons? WTF
Wound allocations was 10x worst (another reason why Deathstars were so popular)
Grenades were still each model no 1 per unit like in 7th
Could not Charge after a disembark
Jink was straight up bad and worst than 7th version


The combination of new Flyer rules, MC terrible rules, vehicle changes, ally, forts and just melee as the worst its been sense 2nd.  7th was amazing after words, 7th had bloat and some other problems but mostly formations killed it where 6th everything killed it.

6th was definitely the rough draft of 7th.

And it was rough.

Yeah.. I was table turn 1 and turn 2 with DE vehicle lists trying out new 6th rules the first bit before moving to Beaststar. Torrent flamers hitting 2-3 open top vehicles literally killing all models inside nad ripping off 1-2 HP's out of 3 was just insanely stupid.... and Jink was really bad too.

Ah, forgot about Jink and Wound allocation. TY for the trip down memory lane.

What I remember most from 6th was buying the BRB, then 2 weeks later 7th came out and invalidated the book. XD

Good times....