Madjob wrote:Feels kind of disingenuous to act as though the mount flamers are going to be so reliably in range. Both units have 12" movement and have no issues advancing however they like, but the Sulfur hounds suffer from 4" less range. Add to that the Sterilyzors move freely thanks to Fly, and the ideal condition of all models firing will be realized by the Sterilyzors far more frequently than the Sulfur hounds.
That's why I said the higher output of Suplhurhounds might or might nt balance out with the increased mobility, utility and range of Sterylizors.
dadamowsky wrote:Sulphurhounds will be very very good IMO in the midfield for a single reason - to diminish the Toughness of the enemy. Any enemy model in 3" including <Vehicles>. Take a look at Rad-Saturated's secondary: Luminary Suffusion.
The con is obvious, the FW does promote <Infantry> over <Cavalry>. Also, I'm not sure whether it will be reworded to exclude <Vehicles> or not in FAQ. Yet I still see a value in small Sulphurhounds units to bring an unpleasant gift to anything they happen to be in range of 3". A gift that affects their own S4 weaponry as well as your gunline's ability to wound.
We are in the same noospheric wavelegth that's what I talked about before. That combo offers something new that no other unit can easily provide (pray for no FAQ though).
Its not modeling for advantage. ITS MODELING AS INTENTED BY GW.
I'd much rather not have to deal with carrying a flyer base, thats the advantage i'm looking for.
Then you picked the wrong unit.
And yeah, it is modeling for advantage. If you cannot understand that the term means "picking a modeled format that gives you an advantage"? That's on you.
But a reasonable person would at least make some damn effort to make it clear where the Archaeopter would be if it were modeled in flight. Whether it be a piece of a tower that the Archaeopter has landed near or some other kind of scenic piece that can be placed if any kind of contesting comes up. Which it will, because it's unreasonable to expect people to be okay with it...especially if you're running the bomber which let's be honest here, has no real reason to be modeled as landed since it is the only one that benefits most from constantly being on the move!
I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh
Totally missed that the heavy phosphor is listed as 0...
There is absolutely no way thats intended lol. Even without the mass of buffs were getting we can slap on dakkabots...that would just make them stupid overpowered...
And make fisticuffbots even worse as they'd cost MORE lol
dadamowsky wrote: I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh
I mean, according to GW's flowchart, 0pts HPB are their cost until they errata it. And the modeling isnt ridiculous. If a new player buys the plane, assembles it by following the instructions and plays with it on the ground, its a legal way to play it. TO's are free to do as they want when it comes to ruling it in their tournaments but these are the basic rules that GW gives for the plane: it can be built on the ground or not.
Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.
dadamowsky wrote: I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh
The difference is that people talked about the HPBs already. It's widely agreed that it's either a misprint or (less likely) that there's an errata coming for Robots. I said earlier that it's possible the powerfists will get "twin heavy phosphor blasters" listed as their replacement, while the Incendine Combustor can be replaced with a HPB. Because remember "twin heavy phosphor blasters" is currently a thing that only is present on the Onager(probably will be on the Archaeopters as well) but for whatever reason they chose to have it as "two heavy phosphor blasters" instead.
Not sure why calling out modeling for advantage(which is what not even bringing the flyer base is, let's be 100% clear) is so contentious.
Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.
Oh come on, don't be silly. We're talking about someone moving it 70 inches then plopping it down an inch past a 6" wall - or even worse, inside a ruin - in a landed position even though it's in supersonic flight mode. Obviously there is no plausible way to argue it would be capable of doing that.
I mean if you want to play 65 point dakkabots and landed flyers in supersonic mode and you can find someone actually willing to play with you go for it...but I know if anyone tried that around here, they'd be quickly, very politely, but firmly told they were not a good fit and were not welcome back. 40k is a game that relies on players not abusing the good faith of other players, and both of these things firmly fall into that category. It's like twisting your tank turret or sponsons to a position it can draw LOS, firing, moving them back afterward, and then announcing that your opponent now cannot fire back at you.
dadamowsky wrote: I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh
I mean, according to GW's flowchart, 0pts HPB are their cost until they errata it. And the modeling isnt ridiculous. If a new player buys the plane, assembles it by following the instructions and plays with it on the ground, its a legal way to play it. TO's are free to do as they want when it comes to ruling it in their tournaments but these are the basic rules that GW gives for the plane: it can be built on the ground or not.
Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.
At this point I'm starting to wonder are you trolling me now.
dadamowsky wrote: I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh
The difference is that people talked about the HPBs already. It's widely agreed that it's either a misprint or (less likely) that there's an errata coming for Robots. I said earlier that it's possible the powerfists will get "twin heavy phosphor blasters" listed as their replacement, while the Incendine Combustor can be replaced with a HPB.
Because remember "twin heavy phosphor blasters" is currently a thing that only is present on the Onager(probably will be on the Archaeopters as well) but for whatever reason they chose to have it as "two heavy phosphor blasters" instead.
I'd maybe buy that if this change was made in the vaccum. But in the context of the EW points table it doesn't make any sense - because it would have to mean Phosphor Carbine is worth 15pts. It's not - the only weapon that makes any sense of this list to be 15pts is HPB, that has been 15pts so far, and nothing else but HPB on this list qualifies. The very fact that HPB is worth 0pts and Phosphor Carbine is 15pts is a straight-up indicator that it is a misprint...
Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.
Oh come on, don't be silly. We're talking about someone moving it 70 inches then plopping it down an inch past a 6" wall - or even worse, inside a ruin - in a landed position even though it's in supersonic flight mode. Obviously there is no plausible way to argue it would be capable of doing that.
I mean if you want to play 65 point dakkabots and landed flyers in supersonic mode and you can find someone actually willing to play with you go for it...but I know if anyone tried that around here, they'd be quickly, very politely, but firmly told they were not a good fit and were not welcome back. 40k is a game that relies on players not abusing the good faith of other players, and both of these things firmly fall into that category.
if it can turn 90degrees while going at full speed, it can probably rotate towards the ground at the end of its movement.
Look, i'm just arguing that if its in the book, its not modeling for advantage.
if theres litterally no modifications to the OFFICIAL instructions, youre still doing it as it was intended by GW.
I'm gonna build it on the base with no stand just because it'll be easier to transport for me. And anyway, theres been guesses that LoS will get fixed with 9th edition. which is probably when i'll be able to get a game in because of quarantine
I'd maybe buy that if this change was made in the vaccum. But in the context of the EW points table it doesn't make any sense - because it would have to mean Phosphor Carbine is worth 15pts. It's not - the only weapon that makes any sense of this list to be 15pts is HPB, that has been 15pts so far, and nothing else but HPB on this list qualifies. The very fact that HPB is worth 0pts and Phosphor Carbine is 15pts is a straight-up indicator that it is a misprint...
Ehhh...the Phosphor Carbine is the 1:3 upgrade to the Sulphurhounds. I could totally buy them pricing it at 15 points.
Spoiler:
If it were the 'standard' weapon for the squad? Maybe it would be 0. The "Heavy Phosphor Blaster" change, I'm almost 100% sure, is relating to something that either isn't present or was meant to be coming with a 9E errata.
To be clear, I have no problem with you building it on the ground. What I would have a problem with is if you then tried to insist I couldn't shoot at it after it moved in supersonic mode because of a 4" wall you plopped it down an inch past.
Modeling your models how you want is great. Many of my models are converted to some greater or lesser degree; every single one of my models is on custom bases. The result is that their heights vary (to a very small degree, usually 1-2mm) from the "stock" base heights. In any game with a new player or a competitive game, I always flag this for my opponent, and give him or her the choice of picking whether we should consider them to be their modeled heights or pretend like they're the height they would be on standard bases.
If I was bringing one of these flyers built on the ground, I'd do the same thing at the start of the game: give my opponent the choice of whether we wanted to consider it to really be on the ground for LOS purposes, or whether we'll consider it to be of the standard flyer height that we all know the model is really at when it's in flyer mode. That's just part of good sportsmanship. Good sportsmanship shouldn't change based on whether you technically modified the normal build instructions or not. The eldar night spinner / fire prism kit has a little antenna on the top that is labelled as an "optional" part that adds nearly an inch to the model's overall height. One of mine has it, the other doesn't, for aesthetic reasons. Technically, this would mean that if they are built as fire prisms, I could use the one with the antenna to draw LOS for linked fire mode, while keeping the others unshootable. This is technically within the rules, but it's the same kind of bad faith exploitation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Raiders and batmen both have terrible morale. 9th may change how morale works, but right now, big units of either seem pretty questionable. Although you do pay less of the "alpha" tax that way, especially for the sterylizors, whose alpha is just terrible compared to the normal ones.
yukishiro1 wrote: To be clear, I have no problem with you building it on the ground. What I would have a problem with is if you then tried to insist I couldn't shoot at it after it moved in supersonic mode because of a 4" wall you plopped it down an inch past.
Modeling your models how you want is great. Many of my models are converted to some greater or lesser degree; every single one of my models is on custom bases. The result is that their heights vary (to a very small degree, usually 1-2mm) from the "stock" base heights. In any game with a new player or a competitive game, I always flag this for my opponent, and give him or her the choice of picking whether we should consider them to be their modeled heights or pretend like they're the height they would be on standard bases.
If I was bringing one of these flyers built on the ground, I'd do the same thing at the start of the game: give my opponent the choice of whether we wanted to consider it to really be on the ground for LOS purposes, or whether we'll consider it to be of the standard flyer height that we all know the model is really at when it's in flyer mode. That's just part of good sportsmanship. Good sportsmanship shouldn't change based on whether you technically modified the normal build instructions or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Raiders and batmen both have terrible morale. 9th may change how morale works, but right now, big units of either seem pretty questionable. Although you do pay less of the "alpha" tax that way, especially for the sterylizors, whose alpha is just terrible compared to the normal ones.
From the reaction i've seen, i thought people were against the very idea of it not being on a stand.
Honestly this problem stems from 40k not having good LoS rules. Imo, GW should borrow from Infinity and use something akin to their silhouettes.
I stopped caring about people's opinion when i modeled a melee knight on a more elevated base and people gave me gak for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gkazman wrote: Just popping in to ask a question; I did a search but can't seem to pin something down. What is a "Grator" in these lists?
Promise I did do a search and just couldn't find the genesis of this.
dadamowsky wrote: I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh
I mean, according to GW's flowchart, 0pts HPB are their cost until they errata it. And the modeling isnt ridiculous. If a new player buys the plane, assembles it by following the instructions and plays with it on the ground, its a legal way to play it. TO's are free to do as they want when it comes to ruling it in their tournaments but these are the basic rules that GW gives for the plane: it can be built on the ground or not.
Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.
What flowchart? The one that USED to be in FAQ? That's gone. Poof. Gone. Wiped out. Doesn't exist. Illegal to use.
Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...
Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.
Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol
Octovol wrote: Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...
Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.
Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol
I can't agree more. Same guy that gave us LD6 across the board.
It's hardly the only book with useless custom traits. Hell, in the first PA book, they even managed to mess things up within the same book: craftworld eldar got excellent custom traits, and dark eldar got horrible ones, for no particular reason.
Octovol wrote: Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...
Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.
Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol
And I think the only cavalry in the game who doesn't get a bump to T?
Octovol wrote: Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...
Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.
Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol
And I think the only cavalry in the game who doesn't get a bump to T?
I don't think Rough Riders get bonus Toughness either.
I have no idea how anyone would think the Custom Dogmas are useless, they just made Kataphron Breachers the most insane unit in the game.
Take the vehicle 6++ primary (useless) and the Arc Weapon baby tesla on 5s and 6s secondary. With a Dominus you're averaging 23 Hits out of 24 shots with the standard BS4+.
In melee, if that same Dominus has Prime Hermeticon, you're getting 45 Hits out of 36 attacks with the same WS4+.
Combine that with a Lucius Warlord for the +1 Invuln Canticle, the Servitor Maniple detachment, and the new Learnings of the Genetor WL trait you get a T5 W3 3+/4++/5+++ Infantry unit with obsec. You can further boost one unit to 3++ with Acquisition.
The thing is if, for example, a squad of rangers could take ALL Arc rifles, now we're in business there.
And if Suplhurhounds were using radium pistols...again boom.
if the buff to BSDT was re-roll morale and 9" then it's useful. The fact that a BSDT is only on vehicles is flawed by design though, take out vehicle and it explodes?
Now if multiple BSDT could stack, then again, we're in business, we have a lot of vehicles we have morale-weak troops, if it capped at +2 or +3 that gives us LD 9 troops with the danger that a vehicle could take them out, that's a calculated risk though. +1 LD on it's own isn't worth the risk.
And if Sulphurhounds are so proficient at pistols on horseback that they get to fire them when they advance, why couldn't we get that on Raiders with rapid-fire weapons?
It's not necessarily that the rules are all that bad, but that there's so few opportunities to benefit from them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pakman184 wrote: I have no idea how anyone would think the Custom Dogmas are useless, they just made Kataphron Breachers the most insane unit in the game.
Take the vehicle 6++ primary (useless) and the Arc Weapon baby tesla on 5s and 6s secondary. With a Dominus you're averaging 23 Hits out of 24 shots with the standard BS4+.
In melee, if that same Dominus has Prime Hermeticon, you're getting 45 Hits out of 36 attacks with the same WS4+.
Combine that with a Lucius Warlord for the +1 Invuln Canticle, the Servitor Maniple detachment, and the new Learnings of the Genetor WL trait you get a T5 W3 3+/4++/5+++ Infantry unit with obsec. You can further boost one unit to 3++ with Acquisition.
It's bonkers.
Name another unit that benefits from all that. Go on, I'll wait. And I dont mean a variant (Destroyers) It's too narrow a bonus. Sure you cant have rules that benefit everything, but in our case everything is super specific to the point that you have to put all your eggs in one basket to really benefit.
Edited for pedantry pre-empt.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, i'll leave what I said up there, but I realise i'm being a tad aggressive. Point I was trying to make is that we seem driven to make one unit our key to victory all the time. We spend so much time and effort to increase a single units effectiveness that it becomes a do or die race.
Those kataphrons will inevitably get shot off the table even with those buffs. Then what? All your cp and prep to make them better is gone. I'd much rather we had a broad spread of bonuses and buffs.
Octovol wrote: Name another unit that benefits from all that. Go on, I'll wait. And I dont mean a variant (Destroyers) It's too narrow a bonus. Sure you cant have rules that benefit everything, but in our case everything is super specific to the point that you have to put all your eggs in one basket to really benefit.
Edited for pedantry pre-empt.
My point is that Admech arguably now have the single most durable, and potentially the strongest, unit or build at the moment and it's thanks to the custom forgeworld stuff. That doesn't mean everything is a viable option, but there's at least one unbelievably strong choice.
Edit: Good luck trying to shoot 3 full units of those off the board. Do you realize how much firepower you would need to do that?
Name another army that got benefits that are as conducive for making a themed force as these were.
I already ran tons of Rangers. I'm someone who played Skitarii, not War Convocation--the new custom traits are fricking awesome for me if I choose to use them...which I very seriously am in regards to doing a Triplex Phall force instead of the Stygies I usually run.
tbh i think the only custom traits i see used at ALL are tyranids. I probably would have used some of these dogma combos but the base dogma Canticle boost is just way too good to pass up. Hell it even makes me think of using other dogmas besides Mars/Stygies for once (granted, those two are still top pick) I legit thought about a proper Ryza list for some reason lol. I dont think it would work but the canticle made me start thinking about it.
Almost every single custom dogma trait only affects a couple of units, and a lot of them only affect 1. The arc weapon boost sounds amazing except theres only 3 units that even have them (vanguard, rangers, and breachers). If the flier was covered in Arc weapons instead of stubbers/heavy phospher i bet this would be an interesting trait, even would use the vehicle 6++ in that case.
Theyre actually worse than the ork subkultures, at least some of the subkultures do see play (grot mobz, boom boyz, tin headz). I'd be shocked to see any of these custom dogmas show up. It almost feels like two people were writing this, one that hated admech and/or didnt understand them at all and another that LOVES admech. The cavalry are the only "average" thing we got, everything else is so wildly amazing or utter garbage its hilarious.
Octovol wrote: Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...
Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.
Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol
And I think the only cavalry in the game who doesn't get a bump to T?
I don't think Rough Riders get bonus Toughness either.
Rough riders definitely didn't/dont and they are the only other T3 cavalry unit in the imperium.
lol I like the actual kits so I will use them, and no im not a millionaire but normally i would be travelling to a tourney every month including hotels and with the country situation I havn't been able to which means more money for plastic
So following up on my prior post about theEFCM strategem, which shuts off auras. Someone just pointed this out to me: Saviour Protocols is also an aura ability.
And apparently, both FLG and NOVA have made rulings to that effect due to Vox Scream.
Edit: Good luck trying to shoot 3 full units of those off the board. Do you realize how much firepower you would need to do that?
I'm not really interested in how untouchable something can be. There should always be a counter to something, if not, then it's broken.
Remember when we used to deploy dragoons 9" from anything, move and guarantee a charge? Yeah, can't do that any more. Any time the odds are so stacked in someone's favour, something is eventually changed. That could be and frequently is a global change to something that affects everyone, just so someone could have their impossible unit. This isn't our fault though, it's down to the poor or lazy rules design. If the rules gave more widely useful benefits we'd see fewer death stars and uber units, less nerfs and much more balanced armies with a greater variety of forces.
Not all of the custom dogmas are bad, I didn't name all of them, I just named the ones that had such a narrow field of vision that it irked me. It irks me even more that I actually really like some of them but that I have to pick a crap one to get a good one. The trade-off shouldn't feel like "if I want this good bonus I have to take this crap one" it should be "if I take this bonus I'll be good at that, but not as good at this" All these marginal increases reduce the epicness of the game. Like when you're playing an RPG and you get some equipment that gives you +5% on something, like wow, so epic this will change my life! It doesn't, it's dull. A few tangible, impactful bonuses, that's what makes things cool, moments of wow. All these little things might all add up to something greater for one or two units, but it makes the rest of the army feel limp and pointless. That's why we've had so much back and forth discussion over the effectiveness of the new units; Not enough impact.
I also will never advocate for multiple Forgeworld setups, for the same reason. Whats is the point in giving us an Army faction choice where you balance the pros and cons only to then go "oh I don't really have to choose? Oh well, I'll have my cake and eat it then" whether the rules allow it or not it bothers me that people feel they have to do it because the benefits of choosing just one arent good enough; Just make that single choice have a really big impact and feel connected to your other choices such that actually making it matters. Cuts down on balance complexity as well.
I think I've digressed and ranted enough lol Just constantly having to faff about is really getting to me when all I want is to pick something cool without feeling like i've kicked myself in the ankle to get an ice cream
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Suzuteo wrote: So following up on my prior post about theEFCM strategem, which shuts off auras. Someone just pointed this out to me: Saviour Protocols is also an aura ability.
And apparently, both FLG and NOVA have made rulings to that effect due to Vox Scream.
Bring a bomber, cheese Tau Riptide stacks.
A lot of the people in that thread seemed to be fine with Vox Scream but totally against ours despite it requiring a specific unit with specific wargear within a tiny range. Where Vox Scream is just: Point at unit 18" away, remove aura effects, for 2cp It feels pretty justified when you compare it to Vox Scream imo.
Ours is like some sort of mini aura EMP lol.
Vox Scream allows them to do the same, point at riptide, whoops no saviour protocols!
You can even point it at Techmarine Gunners to turn off TFCs. Haha.
Anyhow, Tau players can be really precious at times. The concept behind their competitive army is essentially built on abusing rules. They will object to anything that invalidates their ridiculous, non-interactive Shield Drone spam. I remember that Wrath of Mars vs. SP got all sorts of inconsistent rulings.
Octovol wrote: Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...
Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.
Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol
And I think the only cavalry in the game who doesn't get a bump to T?
I don't think Rough Riders get bonus Toughness either.
Rough riders definitely didn't/dont and they are the only other T3 cavalry unit in the imperium.
Granted, it is FW, but Death Korps Death Riders are T4.
Atalan Jackals are T4.
Anything on a bike/jet bike are +1T.
I guess heavily augmented dog-horse-cybernetic soldiers don't count?
Suzuteo wrote: You can even point it at Techmarine Gunners to turn off TFCs. Haha.
Anyhow, Tau players can be really precious at times. The concept behind their competitive army is essentially built on abusing rules. They will object to anything that invalidates their ridiculous, non-interactive Shield Drone spam. I remember that Wrath of Mars vs. SP got all sorts of inconsistent rulings.
Tau players can also counter it through proper screening. As i joked to one take a 100 kroot spread them out and the vehicle wont get close and if the tau player goes first they will destroy the flyer. Its a nice trick its not broken.
Tau aren't really impacted. Because of the way SP is written, you gotta get it within 6 of the unit whose SP you wanna turn off, not just of the drones. A tau castle isn't going to let you park a flyer that close to its key units.
Yeah, actually, I was misreading the datasheets. The datasheets for riptides and stuff like that have savior protocols on them, but that's because you can take drones with them. So it would be only the drones I guess.
They're still gonna have lots of drones on the other side of the castle though that are going to be in range though, even if you disable the drones on one side.
It also only disables models, not units, while savior protocols works on units. So unless you cover the whole unit, it doesn't actually do anything unless you cover the whole unit, because as long as one model still has it, you can allocate wounds to the unit, and then allocate them to a model even if that model's SP are disabled. So even for just 2-drone units, you're going to struggle to disable more than 1 or 2 whole units; it will barely make a dent.
Thing is, Tau has traditionally relied upon balling up their units around Commander. Even if the mere presence of the Copter forces them to spread out, it is a huge advantage. Focusing fire on a Riptide with access to only 5 Drones is way better than 10.
Not how it actually plays out. In practice, this and the ork bomma strat just make tau castle even more carefully. It's easy to screen out any place a plane can land inside your castle, and because SP is by unit, not by model, the strat is unlikely to disable more than like two two-drone units tops because it has to cover the entire unit to have any effect. Disabling 4 drones isn't going to change anything. The explosion and potentially the bombs are a lot more dangerous to tau than the aura, especially since those can't be SP'd off onto drones.
The only time the strat is going to do anything is if the bomber survives late into the game and can come in once they're already so depleted they can't screen it out. But at that point, disabling the last few drones isn't likely to make much difference; they're already vulnerable. You'd have been better off just buying another 110-30 points of shooting to shoot more drones off for those 3-4 turns instead.
Vineheart01 wrote: tbh i think the only custom traits i see used at ALL are tyranids.
I probably would have used some of these dogma combos but the base dogma Canticle boost is just way too good to pass up. Hell it even makes me think of using other dogmas besides Mars/Stygies for once (granted, those two are still top pick)
I legit thought about a proper Ryza list for some reason lol. I dont think it would work but the canticle made me start thinking about it.
I see marine and CWE using custom traits quite a lot.
Suzuteo wrote: Well, I won't do it if it's stupid. But forcing people to be careful instead of allowing them to be aggressive is always a plus.
This is why I virtually always take 2 MSU of rangers with 2 x Arquebus each. They're useful on their own but more than anything they force people to consider where their psykers are and their commanders and officers. They occasionally prevent your opponent from moving their characters into the optimum positions. Sure they might not kill something every turn (which is all anyone talks about here) but the psychological impact of them covering the entire battlefield is not to be sniffed at.
Serby raiders vs sulpher hounds: unless they ditch the points on the phosphor pistols, raiders are so far-superior to hounds there is no question. Raiders firing galvanic carbines get 1 MW+ -1ap on a to-wound of 6, and the scout move; hounds just get the -1T to enemies in melee. The pistol cost looks like it should be "baked in" to the per-model cost.
The pteraxii are a more difficult choice:
Skytalons are 154 points for 10 5+MWs if you move 1 talon over 1 enemy model, moves to 3+ if 1 talon flies over a vehicle. Add in fly-fallback over enemy units and they make for a great screen. Guns are almost "meh", but decent weight of fire.
Sterylizors are viciously under-costed assault units with 3 S5 attacks /model(4 S6 for alpha) on the charge + 12" AP-1 flamers. All for 174 in a full unit.
Haven't gotten a look at the Thropters yet, but not looking too good from the smattering I could gather thus far.
Yes raiders are superior but sulphur hounds aren't bad you just need to max out raiders first and I cant see many doing it although I would love to see a maxed out cavalry list.
I don't think pteraxii is a difficult choice because the answer is neither
Our existing options do the drop in better because of the lack of survivability again it's not that pteraxii are massively weaker it's just that most lists probably only want 1 or 2 units that perform that role and lucius corpuscarii are way more efficient for your first and WoM infilitrators the second, plus 8th terrain rules make them hard to hide being on flying bases and with no durability splat.
Thropters transport is a waste it can't even transport secutarii despite having the keyword
Bomber is to situational will be good vs custodes and intercessor blobs but irrelevant vs knight and guard should see play in some fun lists but it wont be a mainstay of competative
stratoraptor this will atleast help in all games but its fractionally overcosted. - needs chaf launcher for survivability but the strat to switch off auras is half the reason to consider it. I cant see it being a prime choice now but if 9th gets rid of the troop requirement it could edge in
Hey all, been a long time ! With the leaks from Engine War and the new releases it got me motivated to continue repainting my army and the 9th Ed. looks promising on several aspects.
I'd love to write a big block about the tactical opportunities in list-building with this book, in which way we can use the new units alongside the old ones, but let's be real: we know next to nothing about how 9th will work and the impactful changes we will see in the game. For example, I've read several posts talking about the EFCM stratagem with the problem of placing the flyer in the right place, and how it can be screened easily. Remember that in the announcement, it has been said that Flyers will be able to go anywhere they wish. How, we don't know yet, but this solve already the problem of it unable to fly over a place because of some dudes hanging out there.
They're talking about better rules for CC, and especially staying in CC. This can be a huge boon to our melee units depending on how the rules are, and influence whether we need more or less screening in the future. Depending on how the rules for big units still shooting while locked will work, it can make my 4 Robots with Fists&Flame even tastier if they can fry the screens bogging them down. I've had a game where 10 Reivers tried to kill my Onager with knives for 3 turns, if I can still shoot while this happens now I'll be less cautious when deploying it and that changes many things as I need less screens and can spread my army differently.
Concerning the Pteraxii that can "redeploy every turn" I need to remind you that with the current ruleset, we can only enter in deep strike by turn 2 or 3. So either you use the ability to redeploy once in T2, or you have them start on the board and do it twice. But I don't believe they'll be alive long enough for that. Still I believe it's a neat ability that can twist a game in the right conditions !
I'm going to study this a little bit more, but with 9th dropping end of July and the current quarantine it's not very useful to try to figure out stuff that I won't be able to test before a few months when my LGS will host games again. Also, the price of the new releases haha. I still don't own a single Skorpius.
EDIT: There's also the subject of how CPs will work. It looks like (my own assertion) we'll have to decide on the start of our turn which stratagems to use because of the new Command Phase. We also don't know yet how many CPs a regular battle-forged mono-codex army will have. They say "More CPs !" but we don't know in which conditions and by which amount. If you are planning on making nuke drops with 8 CPs on a single action you might want to wait until we have more information before spending the money to buy the units.
That's not how redeploy works. Units that don't start on the board have to show up by T3 or count as destroyed, but units that start on the board, or come onto the board and then are removed again, can use redeploy abilities or strats on any turn.
Nope thats not how the pteraxii rule works there are a few existing units that do that ambull, bore wurm. So long as you have been deployed at some point before the end of turn 3 you can go back into deepstrike without dieing
We are not trying to figur out ninth only discussing engine war pre ninth because that is still a couple of months
yukishiro1 wrote:That's not how redeploy works. Units that don't start on the board have to show up by T3 or count as destroyed, but units that start on the board, or come onto the board and then are removed again, can use redeploy abilities or strats on any turn.
My bad then, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of other units that could use such an ability. Then I reconsider and see it's far less limited, I stand by my opinion that their survivability is still dubious though.
U02dah4 wrote:Nope thats not how the pteraxii rule works there are a few existing units that do that ambull, bore wurm. So long as you have been deployed at some point before the end of turn 3 you can go back into deepstrike without dieing
We are not trying to figur out ninth only discussing engine war pre ninth because that is still a couple of months
Ninth discussion is pointles
Thanks for the examples I didn't know these units.
Well it's not pointless if you're considering your purchases based on 8th, I just wish to avoid the usual tragedy that follows a new edition with people that have unplayable armies all of a sudden.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything new right now till we know how the 9th edition rules are going to shape up, unless you're so committed to the models that you'd want them even if they're total junk in the new edition. That just seems like common sense.
U02dah4 wrote: Yes raiders are superior but sulphur hounds aren't bad you just need to max out raiders first and I cant see many doing it although I would love to see a maxed out cavalry list.
I don't think pteraxii is a difficult choice because the answer is neither
Our existing options do the drop in better because of the lack of survivability again it's not that pteraxii are massively weaker it's just that most lists probably only want 1 or 2 units that perform that role and lucius corpuscarii are way more efficient for your first and WoM infilitrators the second, plus 8th terrain rules make them hard to hide being on flying bases and with no durability splat.
I think the strats certainly open up a bit more room for them there too. Corpuscari might have the edge in shooting, and infiltrators being better with WoM. But neither can give -1 to hit to a Deathstar, which more than makes up the gap between them and the other two along with their movement (outside of a Stygies list).
I've also noticed that the rad saturation secondary trait is also not limited to non-vehicles.
I've also noticed that the rad saturation secondary trait is also not limited to non-vehicles.
Yeah, and Sulphurhounds are the best deliverers of that debuff.
Fingers crossed for intended wording and no erratas.
T7 knights are waaaay less fearsome.
Waiting for 9th rules is still pointless. All those rules could change 3 months in to 9th. You're better off buying what you love or is cool (as well as useful) than buying something just for its rules. Rules change all the time.
Waiting for faq/errata on engine war isn't a terrible idea though, just to clear up the edge cases where we like 2 units but some wording pushes us one way or another.
What the units do is a pretty fundamental part of whether they're cool or not. It's hard to find a carnifex cool when a grot on an oil barrel can fart in his general direction and be totally immune to melee, because of the silly 8th edition keyword rules.
I am totally on board with playing what you like instead of the current FOTM, it just seems a bit silly to be dropping hundreds of dollars now on models with only a vague idea of how they'll fit into a new game, when you would know if you just waited a few weeks.
But people should definitely do what makes them happy.
Sure, but that's not really the question. The question is do you want to buy models now not even knowing how they're going to work in pretty basic ways, when you could just wait a few weeks and find out first?
I mean obviously the answer to that for some people here is "yes, I do want to buy the models now rather than waiting till I know what they'll do." And that's fine. Just seems a bit odd to me.
U02dah4 wrote: Yes raiders are superior but sulphur hounds aren't bad you just need to max out raiders first and I cant see many doing it although I would love to see a maxed out cavalry list.
I don't think pteraxii is a difficult choice because the answer is neither
Our existing options do the drop in better because of the lack of survivability again it's not that pteraxii are massively weaker it's just that most lists probably only want 1 or 2 units that perform that role and lucius corpuscarii are way more efficient for your first and WoM infilitrators the second, plus 8th terrain rules make them hard to hide being on flying bases and with no durability splat.
I think the strats certainly open up a bit more room for them there too. Corpuscari might have the edge in shooting, and infiltrators being better with WoM. But neither can give -1 to hit to a Deathstar, which more than makes up the gap between them and the other two along with their movement (outside of a Stygies list).
I've also noticed that the rad saturation secondary trait is also not limited to non-vehicles.
Yeah and the Skystalkers actually have a bit more deepstrike survivability and threat range too. Having the option to be set up further away instead of being forced to because your screened out and then being safe from the likes of auspex scans is a valid tactic. Having double the range means you could set them up in say a building midfield and still use that 24" range to WoM something or plonk away at a target that infiltrators/corpuscarii wouldnt be able to reach due to a buffer of chaff zoning them out from any juicier targets.
Skystalkers pretty much invalidate Infiltrators, unless your really hard pressed to find 4pts. If your wanting mass str 5 ap 2 short ranged shooting, go for the electro priests. If you want more safety and choice of targets when you arrive from deepstrike with the output of infiltrators, go for Skystalkers.
If it were me I'd go for the option that doesnt care much about screening, and is immune to auspex scans by deploying 13" away and still having the extra 11" range to play with past that 13" distance from the screen, unlike the 3" with a 9" deepstrike from Corpuscarii.
Both units do their things differently and will appeal to different play styles. And like you said, the option of having a -1 to hit is great for when you need it, and having access to +1 to hit due to being skitarii is nice too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Sure, but that's not really the question. The question is do you want to buy models now not even knowing how they're going to work in pretty basic ways, when you could just wait a few weeks and find out first?
I mean obviously the answer to that for some people here is "yes, I do want to buy the models now rather than waiting till I know what they'll do." And that's fine. Just seems a bit odd to me.
I'm with you Yukishiro1, I'm not buying any units or the book unit 9th is out and in my hands. Having too many models to begin with (over 25k points worth of orkz....) I've come to realise, and some of my mates too, that we just impulse buy because it looks nice, but then you dont actually build or paint them, you hobby butterfly your way through multiple releases and you look back and god jesus why did I buy a 2k slaves to darkness army.... I play AoS like once every 3 months....
We dont have that far to wait for 9th and everyday we are getting some drip fed info on what changes are install too. If weve waited 2 months to get Engine War, we can wait an extra month for the new edition if suddenly there is a day 1 errata that bumps up the prices of all vehicles, suddenly everyones lists are gonna take a huge hit.
Playing it safe and waiting is perfectly fine, but If people want to go buy things to paint and play for the last few weeks of 8th then that's ok too even if I dont agree with it for me 8th is over, I'm no longer looking at the new releases and our army with 8th in mind.
yukishiro1 wrote: Sure, but that's not really the question. The question is do you want to buy models now not even knowing how they're going to work in pretty basic ways, when you could just wait a few weeks and find out first?
I mean obviously the answer to that for some people here is "yes, I do want to buy the models now rather than waiting till I know what they'll do." And that's fine. Just seems a bit odd to me.
If I were smarter before I'd buy and assemble my models regularly, paint in sub-assemblies to avoid problems with reaching certain details, and had my collection TT-ready to hit bigger events with painting restrictions. This is why I'm buying all new boxes in a similar pace and starting to work on them as soon as I get them, to not repeat past mistakes and have painted units when I figure out how to use them
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as Skystalkers go, I actually like their niche. Infiltrators but with Fly and greater range and bombing runs and soaring away... Nothing not to love. Which is a pity because after 2 years in the hobby I've just managed to finish magnetising and TT-painting 23 Sicarians...
Maybe Ruststalkers spam with the new outflanking stratagem will make it worthwile
ive been good about that with my admech, about 3.5k or so admech and 1 knight/5 armigers, only the 2 helverines, cawl, and 2 boxes of destroyers arent painted atm. And ive been putting the destroyers off because i HATE painting that model, helverines because i ...just havnt wanted to use them apparently lol
Orks? Dude i probably have 7000pts painted and that much again unpainted, probably a quarter of that still on a damn sprue lol
Intercessors only going up 3 points a model, an 18% increase, while cultists increase in cost by 50%. This raises all sorts of red flags, but even assuming they know what they're doing on a basic level, this is going to completely mess up anybody's list building attempts. Which seems like another reason to shy away from buying new models now, at least large quantities of them.
Intercessors have gone up 3ppm and cultists by 1ppm?
Also 12CP at 2k, with 1 a battleround?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "a global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vineheart01 wrote: ive been good about that with my admech, about 3.5k or so admech and 1 knight/5 armigers, only the 2 helverines, cawl, and 2 boxes of destroyers arent painted atm. And ive been putting the destroyers off because i HATE painting that model, helverines because i ...just havnt wanted to use them apparently lol
Orks? Dude i probably have 7000pts painted and that much again unpainted, probably a quarter of that still on a damn sprue lol
Well it was nearing 30k back in 7th, but looted wagons, skullhamma tanks and big guns no longer exist. I sold my whole Dread Waaagh! section a few months back aswell, so year 25k all painted, my only army to be FULLY painted Orkz are my love, then Admech.
The thing with the Intercessor/Cultist change is that we can assume the weapon profiles will change too. The regular Bolt Rifle can be 3 pts while the Cultists' weapons stay at 0. Please don't spread panic based on next to no information :p
Although it seems that the point costs in Engine War are already irrelevant. So yes, for the min-maxers it would be wiser to magnetise or wait until you build your boxes !
I would assume you at least 1CP per battle round, and maybe even 1CP per turn, with those base CP values. So probably looking at more like 18-24 for a 2k game, not the 12 listed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aaranis wrote: The thing with the Intercessor/Cultist change is that we can assume the weapon profiles will change too. The regular Bolt Rifle can be 3 pts while the Cultists' weapons stay at 0. Please don't spread panic based on next to no information :p
Although it seems that the point costs in Engine War are already irrelevant. So yes, for the min-maxers it would be wiser to magnetise or wait until you build your boxes !
I don't think anybody's spreading panic. Just pointing out that these represent large, significant changes to the game, not the minor update some people seemed to think 9th would be. So the argument that things aren't going to change much so there's no reason to wait to buy seems less valid than it was.
Makes me kind of glad I didnt preorder EW too tbh, with the pts section becoming invalidated and a possible FAQ to fix/clarify some parts of the book, id rather hold off on spending £19.99 just right now same with the new units.
Waiting til July/August is ok with me, I have no tournaments to go to anyway and neither will anyone else (unless your playing on TTS) with 9th starting and the globial pandemic.
Again final list construction for ninth cant be done but you can certainly predict that i want cavalry in my list youll still need ew for the stratrgems etc
Points changing isn't an indication of game mechanic changes. It simply means they want smaller games that don't last as long. The easiest way to do that is to put less models down on the table.
But yeah even I'm probably going to wait now. I've pre ordered the book, because we'll need it any way regardless of 9th. The fact that they're doing daily new 40k updates suggests it's not too far off. I reckon the rest of June will be Spider and Pariah early July. Then not long after 9th.
End of July is like 50 week days away they can't possibly string out a daily update of new 9th stuff over that many days even with their championship dragging skills lol
We know the rules are changing too. But my point (ha, ha) was that if they want smaller games, that's even more reason to hesitate to buy a bunch of new models. We are going to have to be cutting our lists down anyway, not adding to them - so it's going to be all the more necessary to be careful to make sure we really want to buy the new stuff, because it's not just replacing an equal amount of old stuff...we're also going to have to cut like 1/3 of what we've got already just to meet the new points costs.
8th was released about 45 days after it was announced. I would be really surprised if it's any longer this time. They have every reason to get it out as fast as they can, because there are tons of people like me who are not buying anything until they do.
Octovol wrote: Points changing isn't an indication of game mechanic changes. It simply means they want smaller games that don't last as long. The easiest way to do that is to put less models down on the table.
But yeah even I'm probably going to wait now. I've pre ordered the book, because we'll need it any way regardless of 9th. The fact that they're doing daily new 40k updates suggests it's not too far off. I reckon the rest of June will be Spider and Pariah early July. Then not long after 9th.
End of July is like 50 week days away they can't possibly string out a daily update of new 9th stuff over that many days even with their championship dragging skills lol
They dragged out our Admech teases for quite awhile didnt they, like 8 or 9 articles haha last month alone. Of course that was because of the pandemic, im mainly making a jest that if they can do that for 1 faction in a book they can do it about every page in the rule book hahaha!
I am 95% sure 9th would already be out right now without the pandemic.
9th will release as soon as they have the new starter box ready to ship. That's the hold-up, the rules are clearly already finalized and ready to go, and printing up the books doesn't take long. But they won't want to release the rules alone before they're ready to release the boxed set that contains the rules plus the new models, because that would dampen the appetite for that set.
As I said earlier a source of mine was claiming preorders mid-July, for release by the end of the month. Looks legit to me. It probably would've launched in June like 8th.
They don't need all the models available to start the edition, the same way that the Sisters Codex dropped and it took 3+ months for the entire range to be released. In fact I would expect that at least a large portion of the new units won't come out until the Necron Codex does, and I would be super surprised if the Codex is released at the same time 9th is; has that ever happened before? Unless they're all coming in the last PA book.
They obviously do need all the models that come in the starter box with the rulebook, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reecius also just let it slip that there are significant incentives against taking big units. Probably impacts ad mech the least of most people, but if you were about to buy the boxes to make a bunch of max-size units of raiders, for example, it seems like a pretty big warning.
Meh. Reecius' credibility is long since shot, he kept talking about how Stompas were going to be amazing early on in 8th.
At this point? We knew "hordes" were going to have downsides. They literally told us that day one, with the fact that Blast weapons get a benefit against them. It would be more worthwhile repeating anything he said if, say, it was a direct notation as to what constitutes a "horde".
You can watch the thing if you want the exact wording. It was the latest episode of signals from the frontline.
He was asked "what army is going to suffer most?" and (paraphrasing) said "it isn't about the army, it's about the archtype." He then specifically referenced an ork horde list with tons of boyz and grots and said that list is going to suffer because of the disincentives to run large units in 9th.
Make of it whatever you will. He may be totally wrong - but he's seen the rules, and we haven't. So if it were me, I sure wouldn't order a bunch of boxes planning to make them into max-size units until I can see the rules myself to see if he's right or not.
We already know that hordes are a thing that are going to hurt. Ork Boyz and Grots were specifically called out as things that will be good targets for blast weapons by GW during the streams they've done...because there's also some new morale shenanigans that will be in effect. They said that there's a specific number of models in a unit that makes them count as a horde. It would have more weight if he specifically called out numbers, but we haven't gotten anyone doing that yet.
Right now? I'd say go for those 6 model squads of cavalry. If that's what we're considering 'horde armies' now? Then it means any army with a min/max unit size of '10' is now a horde. Never have heard of Fire Warriors being 'hordes', nor Skitarii, nor anything like that.
You're welcome to dismiss it or make of it what you will. I just thought it was worth sharing with people, so they could make up their own minds.
I don't think ad mech is going to be particularly severely impacted, as I noted in my initial post. The only thing in the ad mech list you can take in legitimate horde sizes is priests I think, and people rarely do anyway. But those max size 9 man units of L6/7 raiders already looked a bit vulnerable to morale in 8th...
Aaranis wrote: The thing with the Intercessor/Cultist change is that we can assume the weapon profiles will change too. The regular Bolt Rifle can be 3 pts while the Cultists' weapons stay at 0. Please don't spread panic based on next to no information :p
Although it seems that the point costs in Engine War are already irrelevant. So yes, for the min-maxers it would be wiser to magnetise or wait until you build your boxes !
Cultists went up by 50%.
To match that proportion, assuming Cultists' base wargear is free, Bolt Rifles (of any v ariety) would have to be 5.5 points each.
It's not a good sign-that is what they chose to get us excited. That is what they decided to tease. That the arguably best Troops choice for CSM (that's taken to be chaff and generate CP) went up 50%, while arguably the best troops choice in the game, and certainly a stellar pick for Marines went up less than 20%.
Yeah, it's a very weird choice of things to advertise, especially with them implying that big units are disfavored in the newer edition, not buffed. It's hard to see what could justify such a big price increase for cultists relative to intercessors - unless they really are doing something very weird and charging a TON for the weapon.
Aaranis wrote: The thing with the Intercessor/Cultist change is that we can assume the weapon profiles will change too. The regular Bolt Rifle can be 3 pts while the Cultists' weapons stay at 0. Please don't spread panic based on next to no information :p
Although it seems that the point costs in Engine War are already irrelevant. So yes, for the min-maxers it would be wiser to magnetise or wait until you build your boxes !
Cultists went up by 50%.
To match that proportion, assuming Cultists' base wargear is free, Bolt Rifles (of any v ariety) would have to be 5.5 points each.
It's not a good sign-that is what they chose to get us excited. That is what they decided to tease. That the arguably best Troops choice for CSM (that's taken to be chaff and generate CP) went up 50%, while arguably the best troops choice in the game, and certainly a stellar pick for Marines went up less than 20%.
Calm. Down. Arguing about raises in a relative scale is just dumb, as we don't know the entire context around those points increases and we've got nothing to compare it to. No, Intercessor is not a comparison for a Cultist - Guardsman is. For all we know it might an effect of purely small absolute starting points value on Cultists, since you can't balance precisely as you can't use fractions. They most likely rounded the percentage up and it will happen to most if not all small points value models.
Intercessors have gone up 3ppm and cultists by 1ppm?
Cultists 2ppm.
And as for weapons...For weapons to be non free it would have to be option. If model just has weapons it's 0 and wargear is included in cost. Shadowsword volcano cannon is 0 pts...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
deffrekka wrote: Makes me kind of glad I didnt preorder EW too tbh, with the pts section becoming invalidated and a possible FAQ to fix/clarify some parts of the book, id rather hold off on spending £19.99 just right now same with the new units.
Waiting til July/August is ok with me, I have no tournaments to go to anyway and neither will anyone else (unless your playing on TTS) with 9th starting and the globial pandemic.
So you don't need stratagems etc?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I am 95% sure 9th would already be out right now without the pandemic.
9th will release as soon as they have the new starter box ready to ship. That's the hold-up, the rules are clearly already finalized and ready to go, and printing up the books doesn't take long. But they won't want to release the rules alone before they're ready to release the boxed set that contains the rules plus the new models, because that would dampen the appetite for that set.
I doubt. Pariah would have been june release. You expected them to release 9th ed BEFORE last PA? July was likely the release month always. They just REALLY rushed it putting 3 months releases to 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's a very weird choice of things to advertise, especially with them implying that big units are disfavored in the newer edition, not buffed. It's hard to see what could justify such a big price increase for cultists relative to intercessors - unless they really are doing something very weird and charging a TON for the weapon.
Maybe you see why when you realize playtesters they use have during 8th ed made tournament rules that favour elites and discourages hordes...They have the style of game they want to play.
Honestly, the points increase is just confusing the crap out of everyone. I think maybe Engine War just got delayed too long, and this is damage control?
Suzuteo wrote: Honestly, the points increase is just confusing the crap out of everyone. I think maybe Engine War just got delayed too long, and this is damage control?
Eh the corona isn't reason for point increase which was decided on months ago.
The point increasing in itself is long due. As a bare minimum gives more granularity(went too far for this...) and maybe even reduce models and quicken games though players can ruin that one.
Pts increase game wide is an irrelevance for speeding up or alowing down the game. just as nothing stopped you playing 1500pts if you wanted a faster game now nothing stops you playing 2500 or 3000pts in 9th if you want a slower game. To's have not always followed GW's lead when it comes to tournaments look at 1850pts in 7th.
And 3000pts was one of there recommended levels if the cultist increase is anything to go by that might be equivalent to 2000 pts now. But its too little data to say for sure
Personally I think the increase to cultists is indicative of a push to take actually useful impactful units instead. Cp is no longer tied to list construction so there's no real need for cultists. They don't do anything other than body barrier and sit on objectives.
Especially in an army that isn't based on large numbers. If we saw that kind of increase in a termagaunt then that's more indicative imo. Though maybe they want tyranids to use more warriors? There are so many unknown factors.
Intercessors have gone up 3ppm and cultists by 1ppm?
Cultists 2ppm.
And as for weapons...For weapons to be non free it would have to be option. If model just has weapons it's 0 and wargear is included in cost. Shadowsword volcano cannon is 0 pts...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
deffrekka wrote: Makes me kind of glad I didnt preorder EW too tbh, with the pts section becoming invalidated and a possible FAQ to fix/clarify some parts of the book, id rather hold off on spending £19.99 just right now same with the new units.
Waiting til July/August is ok with me, I have no tournaments to go to anyway and neither will anyone else (unless your playing on TTS) with 9th starting and the globial pandemic.
So you don't need stratagems etc?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I am 95% sure 9th would already be out right now without the pandemic.
9th will release as soon as they have the new starter box ready to ship. That's the hold-up, the rules are clearly already finalized and ready to go, and printing up the books doesn't take long. But they won't want to release the rules alone before they're ready to release the boxed set that contains the rules plus the new models, because that would dampen the appetite for that set.
I doubt. Pariah would have been june release. You expected them to release 9th ed BEFORE last PA? July was likely the release month always. They just REALLY rushed it putting 3 months releases to 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it's a very weird choice of things to advertise, especially with them implying that big units are disfavored in the newer edition, not buffed. It's hard to see what could justify such a big price increase for cultists relative to intercessors - unless they really are doing something very weird and charging a TON for the weapon.
Maybe you see why when you realize playtesters they use have during 8th ed made tournament rules that favour elites and discourages hordes...They have the style of game they want to play.
My mistake I thought Cultists were 5ppm, an honest mistake for someone who has no real interest in CSM at all. As for needing stratagems... I wont be needing them until I play the game and I wont be playing a game until after lockdown is well and truly finised. Rushing to buy a book isnt my priority right now, ask me 2-3 months ago and I would of jumped at the gun to get a limted edition version like every other codex ive owned even past 8th's life cycle.
I am not going to buy the book until I know what the new edition will do, what will change and if I even carry on playing this army or move to an army more suited to 9ths ethos until Admech get a new Codex. It may sound extreme to some but 8th left a very bad taste in my mouth numerous times with me taking a break from it. Not owning the book as soon as it drops isnt a bad thing and if by chance the book gets some hefty FAQ changes, id rather buy the digital enhanced version. Ive impuled bought a lot of things throughout my Warhammer life and lockdown has changed that for me where I no longer feel the urge to buy something just because its for my favourite army, have my 25k of Orkz to prove that point for me, when am I ever gonna use 5 of each plane, 3 stompas, etc, etc.
Yes rules always change, but id rather purchase something that I know will actually suit and last a somewhat long time in the new edition. Luckily my gaming group has a joint "library" of sorts where we donate or chip in for books so we all have access to them together.
Body barriers that sit on objectives are useful. Sitting on objectives wins games. Without them games devolve into alpha vs alpha and the role to go first wins.
Suzuteo wrote: Honestly, the points increase is just confusing the crap out of everyone. I think maybe Engine War just got delayed too long, and this is damage control?
My biggest issue has always been the transparancy with GW, they are a lot better now, but if Engine War was realised on schedule without Coronavirus throwing the whole world into chaos, we wouldnt even know that 3 months letter those pts would be invalidated. We would have rumours of a new edition but nothing concrete. Reminds me of when I bought my Wood Elf army book and no less than a month later AGE OF SIGMAR! in no way shape or form is this close to that scope and severity but it still devalues the PA book somewhat. If they did the something like DND Beyond where you could buy sections of the books like datasheets, warlord traits, stratagems on a digital format, that would be so much better. We already have to pay for stuff we dont need like Chaos Daemons, Chaos Knights and to some extent if youd dont use Imperial Knights, them also. Whilst we do get the lions share of book space and content, your £25 that is equal in value as a Codex isnt all that equal to begin with.
Im fine with things going up in pts, as CA was getting a little silly with the constant pts drops feeling like nothing actually changed as everyone got them. Hopefully the new pts will be more balanced and reflective of what a model can do in the wider view of things. Haing my Grot pay the same amount of pts as a Conscript always infuriated me, a Grot should be the cheapest model in the game! But I digress
Octovol wrote: Personally I think the increase to cultists is indicative of a push to take actually useful impactful units instead. Cp is no longer tied to list construction so there's no real need for cultists. They don't do anything other than body barrier and sit on objectives.
Especially in an army that isn't based on large numbers. If we saw that kind of increase in a termagaunt then that's more indicative imo. Though maybe they want tyranids to use more warriors? There are so many unknown factors.
I don't understand this. This is basically saying "GW deliberately made cultists terrible because they don't want anybody to use them because they're trash." Deliberately making models in their range terrible so that nobody uses them is not something GW has ever embraced in the past, and I don't see why they would do so now, as it makes zero sense from a business perspective.
I think what he is saying is more in line with the camp who believes GW wants to slightly alter their IP to focus on more elite units, monsters, vehicles, etc and move away from horde units.
Octovol wrote: Personally I think the increase to cultists is indicative of a push to take actually useful impactful units instead. Cp is no longer tied to list construction so there's no real need for cultists. They don't do anything other than body barrier and sit on objectives.
Especially in an army that isn't based on large numbers. If we saw that kind of increase in a termagaunt then that's more indicative imo. Though maybe they want tyranids to use more warriors? There are so many unknown factors.
I don't understand this. This is basically saying "GW deliberately made cultists terrible because they don't want anybody to use them because they're trash." Deliberately making models in their range terrible so that nobody uses them is not something GW has ever embraced in the past, and I don't see why they would do so now, as it makes zero sense from a business perspective.
it makes every sense from a business perspective - make cultist terrible make CSM better and all the players with cultists and no CSM buy CSM
I am liking this new pay for detachment system they just teased. It makes a lot more sense. My main drawback in 8th as a person who always included knight in my army was running out of CP before getting to use anything good. I'm excited to start with 11 (Im assuming superheavy will still be one?) and regenerating.
1) Engine War was delayed by coronavirus. We were supposed to have many more weeks to play with the new toys and rules before 9E dropped.
2) 9E seems to be an attempt to reduce the disparity between matched and narrative play. They want to make match play less mechanical and narrative more organized.
3) 9E also seems to be an attempt to align the expectations of matched play with those of TOs. You can already see it in the objectives and how they are increasing points across the board. I expect that ITC will just be adopting 9E straight out of the book.
That being said, I think we do need the points increase. My army has gotten so big that it cannot even fit inside my Hefty container anymore. And games feel way longer than they did during the Index days for sure. I could finish all 6 rounds easily in those days. Now, it's usually 4-5 rounds.
we have good warlord traits now enginseers are still good buff carriers and are still the cheap option
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VirtualJiva wrote: I am liking this new pay for detachment system they just teased. It makes a lot more sense. My main drawback in 8th as a person who always included knight in my army was running out of CP before getting to use anything good. I'm excited to start with 11 (Im assuming superheavy will still be one?) and regenerating.
nope its pretty terrible - not for mono mechanicus but any army currently running two battallions or a brigade is currently looking at a cp loss - anyone running 3 specialist detatchments that didnt gain much cp could be looking at a gain this ironically encourages multifaction specilist soup
1) Engine War was delayed by coronavirus. We were supposed to have many more weeks to play with the new toys and rules before 9E dropped.
2) 9E seems to be an attempt to reduce the disparity between matched and narrative play. They want to make match play less mechanical and narrative more organized.
3) 9E also seems to be an attempt to align the expectations of matched play with those of TOs. You can already see it in the objectives and how they are increasing points across the board. I expect that ITC will just be adopting 9E straight out of the book.
That being said, I think we do need the points increase. My army has gotten so big that it cannot even fit inside my Hefty container anymore. And games feel way longer than they did during the Index days for sure. I could finish all 6 rounds easily in those days. Now, it's usually 4-5 rounds.
1) they teased it since sep no credit for the delay
2) and as usual they fail - sure these changes alter things singnificantly but the matched lists will be just as mechanical and less fluffy given brigades are less encouraged by cp and you are equally punished for taking a second in faction detatchment as a second faction
3) maybe but ITC are a minority of tournaments and very america centered aligned with those TO's doesnt mean all
It may require less entries to fill the requirements for a detachment though, since the points will go up, and the slots stay the same as far as I can see. I'm glad points are going up because no way in hell I'm paying 65€ for a Skorpius that I need twice at least, who costs less than 5% of a 2000 pts list.
I hope this is not the only fix to melee armies, because that's a pretty sad stratagem xD
Aaranis wrote: It may require less entries to fill the requirements for a detachment though, since the points will go up, and the slots stay the same as far as I can see. I'm glad points are going up because no way in hell I'm paying 65€ for a Skorpius that I need twice at least, who costs less than 5% of a 2000 pts list.
I hope this is not the only fix to melee armies, because that's a pretty sad stratagem xD
Dont Dark Eldar Helions have a similar stratagem? That no one ever uses because helions suck and so does the stratagem... I dont think id ever use this strat unless im suer desperate and clutching at straws!
Eviscerating Fly-by, not the same but still trash for a fishing for 6s MW strat.
VirtualJiva wrote: I am liking this new pay for detachment system they just teased. It makes a lot more sense. My main drawback in 8th as a person who always included knight in my army was running out of CP before getting to use anything good. I'm excited to start with 11 (Im assuming superheavy will still be one?) and regenerating.
nope its pretty terrible - not for mono mechanicus but any army currently running two battallions or a brigade is currently looking at a cp loss - anyone running 3 specialist detatchments that didnt gain much cp could be looking at a gain this ironically encourages multifaction specilist soup
They mention that:
However, it’s worth noting that the Command points spent on a ‘core’ Detachment (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade) are refunded if it also includes your Warlord, so your first Detachment is usually free.
It seems like there wasn't any penalty to souping after all, there was a penalty to taking more than a single detachment (or taking a single detachment of anything other than patrol, bat, or brigade), whether it's soup or not.
Which seems kinda dumb, frankly. As silly as it was that more detachments gave you more CP...more detachments costing you CP is also silly.
And that stratagem is laughably, absurdly, incredibly bad. The fact that they thought it was something good to advertise their new addition is really troubling, honestly.
VirtualJiva wrote: I am liking this new pay for detachment system they just teased. It makes a lot more sense. My main drawback in 8th as a person who always included knight in my army was running out of CP before getting to use anything good. I'm excited to start with 11 (Im assuming superheavy will still be one?) and regenerating.
nope its pretty terrible - not for mono mechanicus but any army currently running two battallions or a brigade is currently looking at a cp loss - anyone running 3 specialist detatchments that didnt gain much cp could be looking at a gain this ironically encourages multifaction specilist soup
They mention that:
However, it’s worth noting that the Command points spent on a ‘core’ Detachment (Patrol, Battalion or Brigade) are refunded if it also includes your Warlord, so your first Detachment is usually free.
I think this is a good change.
I think its good too, I could possibly slim my army down to a single battalion anyway, I stopped taking other Imperial units and focused purely on Admech and I only ever ran dual Stygies battalions anyway.... I will pretty much have the sane of CP that only increases as the game goes on, and I also had your problem of my army being so large that I need 3 cases. Im looking at getting a magnetic tray case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It seems like there wasn't any penalty to souping after all, there was a penalty to taking more than a single detachment (or taking a single detachment of anything other than patrol, bat, or brigade), whether it's soup or not.
Which seems kinda dumb, frankly. As silly as it was that more detachments gave you more CP...more detachments costing you CP is also silly.
And that stratagem is laughably, absurdly, incredibly bad. The fact that they thought it was something good to advertise their new addition is really troubling, honestly.
It does make you wonder if they do infact play test everything or only core rules and datasheets. With having the "elite" playtesters for match play, how the did this pass through the net!
Is the new strat niche or situational? Absolutely - it will be used to get those last wounds on characters or vehs or slay the last model in the unit. Is it bad? Not really, you've got 50% chances to score 1 MW for each 3 models you have in the "engagement range" (sounds very AoSy btw, 1" rule is probably going away). 10 Sterylizors kissing a tank with a combat tag would deal 1-2 MWs on average.
A general stratagem like that to be kept as an additional option to spend all those free CPs we get? I'm all for it.
What sort of bizarre situation would you need to be in where you can get 10+ models within striking range of a wounded character without being able to wrap it? I mean it's theoretically possible, but that's beyond just niche. It's "when venus is in alignment with orion on the night of a full moon" level niche.
The typical valuation for 1CP MW strats is 1CP for 1d3 mortal wounds in X situation - there are literally dozens of examples of this. You need 12 models in range of the unit to make this worth the average valuation. And these 1CP for 1d3 mortal wounds strats are rarely used anyway, because the consensus is that they are poor value for CP except in very particular circumstances.
It is "just bad," as a matter of math. There are virtually no situations where, if you have that many models capable of striking something, you wouldn't be better off using those models to wrap or move-block instead. Basically the only time it will ever even come up is if you have a ton of crappy infantry surrounding a unit with the fly keyword in the middle of the board without enough board control to move-block it from falling back. It's super, super, super niche. And even in that super niche situation...the payoff is underwhelming.
yukishiro1 wrote: What sort of bizarre situation would you need to be in where you can get 10+ models within striking range of a wounded character without being able to wrap it? I mean it's theoretically possible, but that's beyond just niche. It's "when venus is in alignment with orion on the night of a full moon" level niche.
The typical valuation for 1CP MW strats is 1CP for 1d3 mortal wounds in X situation - there are literally dozens of examples of this. You need 12 models in range of the unit to make this worth the average valuation. And these 1CP for 1d3 mortal wounds strats are rarely used anyway, because the consensus is that they are poor value for CP except in very particular circumstances.
It is "just bad," as a matter of math. There are virtually no situations where, if you have that many models capable of striking something, you wouldn't be better off using those models to wrap or move-block instead. Basically the only time it will ever even come up is if you have a ton of crappy infantry surrounding a unit with the fly keyword in the middle of the board without enough board control to move-block it from falling back. It's super, super, super niche. And even in that super niche situation...the payoff is underwhelming.
You want to tell me you never piled in/consolidated into a target you've not declared? Or nothing ever escaped combat because your unit whiffed, or you had to divide attacks available?
I don't get how your response relates to mine. If you can pile in or consolidate into a target you didn't declare with 10+ models, why wouldn't you just wrap it instead? If you divided attacks badly, again, why wouldn't you just wrap it during consolidation?
It's not impossible to think of situations where this is theoretically not terrible. But they're extremely few and far between. Basically: "a unit with fly that wants to fall back from you that you can't move-block that you have 12+ models in range of, that dealing a couple of MWs to would actually be useful."
If your unit whiffed, a smattering of MWs wont be solving their problems.... they are still getting blasted in the opponents turn irregardless.
Also just because we get 12+1 CP a turn doesnt mean we will get a 6 as games rarely last to turn 6, we are quite a CP intensive army, I wouldnt spare a CP for this any day of the week unless I was extremely desperate, which means im probably loosing the game anyway.
So I agree with Yukishiro 100000% its a gimmicky strat that GW is tryna show off that apparently helps combat units. Unless overwatch also changes to a similiar strat (highly unlikely) then this strat is pretty damn near pointless.
However we've just been granted 6 FA choices and a single battalion only allows up to 3 without us then having to pay for more. Same for heavy support. 6 troops and elites is fine, but our utility balance is skewed now as the way our elite choices are set the moment we're only ever taking 3.
My mind is never gonna justify paying for a detachment when I had 13cp before. Though I guess the 1 extra cp power turn might balance that out.
I never really wanted 2 battalions though, just more heavy support and cplol
It would still be a gimmicky pointless strat even if overwatch changes to be a similar strat. That would just make combat armies better for a different reason - not because of this strat, but because of the overwatch change.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't get how your response relates to mine. If you can pile in or consolidate into a target you didn't declare with 10+ models, why wouldn't you just wrap it instead? If you divided attacks badly, again, why wouldn't you just wrap it during consolidation?
It's not impossible to think of situations where this is theoretically not terrible. But they're extremely few and far between. Basically: "a unit with fly that wants to fall back from you that you can't move-block that you have 12+ models in range of, that dealing a couple of MWs to would actually be useful."
Because sometimes charge range rolled, pile-in and consolidate is not enough to wrap, just enough to tag? I know my charge rolls are lousy but am I really the only one who rolls way below the needed inches to get to really juicy targets? Besides I don't really understand why the upset on a more, let's call it, basic level - are we angry because there's a niche stratagem, we pay nothing to unlock because it's simply there, to be potentially useful to stop or finish something we didn't manage with normal means?
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't get how your response relates to mine. If you can pile in or consolidate into a target you didn't declare with 10+ models, why wouldn't you just wrap it instead? If you divided attacks badly, again, why wouldn't you just wrap it during consolidation?
It's not impossible to think of situations where this is theoretically not terrible. But they're extremely few and far between. Basically: "a unit with fly that wants to fall back from you that you can't move-block that you have 12+ models in range of, that dealing a couple of MWs to would actually be useful."
Because sometimes charge range rolled, pile-in and consolidate is not enough to wrap, just enough to tag? I know my charge rolls are lousy but am I really the only one who rolls way below the needed inches to get to really juicy targets? Besides I don't really understand why the upset on a more, let's call it, basic level - are we angry because there's a niche stratagem, we pay nothing to unlock because it's simply there, to be potentially useful to stop or finish something we didn't manage with normal means?
I still don't get your response. For this stratagem to be worth using, you need to have 10+ models in range to strike. If you were able to accomplish that, why wouldn't you have been able to accomplish a wrap? If it's "just enough to tag," you wouldn't be able to get into range with 10+ models. It's theoretically possible to imagine a situation where you can hit with 10+ models but not wrap - a really carefully packed and deployed castle can make it impossible to wrap no matter how much movement you have - but it's super rare. And if that is the situation, it seems really hard to imagine how an extra 2MW would make any difference. You shouldn't be charging tightly packed castles like that period unless you have overwhelming fighting power - in which case an anemic MW on a 6 strat is almost certainly a bad use of your CP.
People aren't angry I don't think, more amused, and somewhat worried that GW thought to show this strat off as a teaser. I mean if this was just tossed into some codex nobody would care. But it's odd it was selected as a highlight of 9th edition. It's like making the soggy carrots your restaurant puts on the side of the children's meal the highlight of your advertising campaign.
yukishiro1 wrote: It seems like there wasn't any penalty to souping after all, there was a penalty to taking more than a single detachment (or taking a single detachment of anything other than patrol, bat, or brigade), whether it's soup or not.
Which seems kinda dumb, frankly. As silly as it was that more detachments gave you more CP...more detachments costing you CP is also silly.
And that stratagem is laughably, absurdly, incredibly bad. The fact that they thought it was something good to advertise their new addition is really troubling, honestly.
Remains to be seen. Remember that Specialist Detachments grant Warlord Traits to non-Warlord characters...it very well might be something where Specialist Detachments or Detachments containing a character with a Warlord Trait will refund the CP.
Well, but that'd unbalance things even more based on whether you have one of the (usually new) codexes or PA books that let you give multiple models warlord traits, or whether you're stuck with a codex/PA release (usually older) that only gives you one warlord trait per army. When the whole point of what they're doing is supposedly to create a level playing field.
This is GW, obviously what they say their intent is and what they actually do are often completely unrelated. But it'd sure be odd.
U02dah4 wrote: Why? Because most admech players are mars artillery lists?
Aggripinaa lists need 9-12 CP just for the agripinas strat dead
Mixed admech lists need 2 CP for a WoM drop in 2 CP for dragoons maybe 4 CP for Ryzaphrones 2CP for corpuscarii and we are already above the 9 dead
Lucius beta 9 times lucius strat alone lol
Stygies + knight lets assume 5 CP for the knight that leaves 2 for the dragoons and oh look 2 left dead
Sure mono mars or a similar stygies build can still run but any of the other common builds are barely/not functional at so low CP
But add 6cp variety again
Then your going to have to change your lists, like we all will. As ive been saying 9th is a different kettle of fish compared to 8th, trying to mash your current army into this new edition is kind of silly and pointless... I will be running a Battalion and a Spearhead so Ill probs have 10CP to start with, my army as a whole will be changing. I was always a Stygies boy but I might be going to a more mobile Mars list. Not everyone builds castles and I always ran Strafing Firing Run with my Kastellans, as everyone knows, I wasnt an auto root and shoot twice player, I preferred the mobility.
Now im saving a CP from that specialist detachment and a CP everytime i would have normally have wanted to move my Kastellans with no heavy penalty. I never saw anyone but you run Agripinaa, Ive seen Lucius a few time and Stygies alot. At the end of the day your going to have to make cuts to your list, like I will, like the next Admech player will. We will adapt to the new edition.
I suspect our armies will shoot up 15-20% So our 2k lists will most likely be 1600-1750pts. It too soon to have the doom and gloom attitude, in a few weeks we can all digest and anaylse what we need to do to stay viable in 9th (which we will 80% sure on that).
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't get how your response relates to mine. If you can pile in or consolidate into a target you didn't declare with 10+ models, why wouldn't you just wrap it instead? If you divided attacks badly, again, why wouldn't you just wrap it during consolidation?
It's not impossible to think of situations where this is theoretically not terrible. But they're extremely few and far between. Basically: "a unit with fly that wants to fall back from you that you can't move-block that you have 12+ models in range of, that dealing a couple of MWs to would actually be useful."
Because sometimes charge range rolled, pile-in and consolidate is not enough to wrap, just enough to tag? I know my charge rolls are lousy but am I really the only one who rolls way below the needed inches to get to really juicy targets? Besides I don't really understand why the upset on a more, let's call it, basic level - are we angry because there's a niche stratagem, we pay nothing to unlock because it's simply there, to be potentially useful to stop or finish something we didn't manage with normal means?
I think you are missing that only models within "engagement range" of the falling back unit get to roll for mortal wounds. We are not completely sure at the moment if engagement range is just a defined term for "able to fight in the fight phase" or "within 1 inch of the unit".
So simply "tagging" a Character or shooty unit with 1 or 2 models in your unit is not going to amount to any MWs(most likely) and just waste CP.
If engagement range is defined as "able to fight", that means 1" of the unit and 1" of a model within 1"; then there might be more of an incentive to not wrap a unit in combat, leaving a "fall-back corridor" to bait the strat.
Does seem a little silly to strategize for the stratagem though. I don't think it will come up too often for most players, and won't have much effect when it does. Yes, it does have the potential to be powerfull; but if my kat-destroyers are swarmed by 20 models with an exit corridor, I am going to say "eff-it" they are fighting this fight phase. At least I can activate them before the enemy wipes them out anyway(it is after all my turn if I can contemplate falling back), and if I even get 1w through then that is a win for the destroyers.
U02dah4 wrote: Why? Because most admech players are mars artillery lists?
Aggripinaa lists need 9-12 CP just for the agripinas strat dead
Mixed admech lists need 2 CP for a WoM drop in 2 CP for dragoons maybe 4 CP for Ryzaphrones 2CP for corpuscarii and we are already above the 9 dead
Lucius beta 9 times lucius strat alone lol
Stygies + knight lets assume 5 CP for the knight that leaves 2 for the dragoons and oh look 2 left dead
Sure mono mars or a similar stygies build can still run but any of the other common builds are barely/not functional at so low CP
But add 6cp variety again
Then your going to have to change your lists, like we all will. As ive been saying 9th is a different kettle of fish compared to 8th, trying to mash your current army into this new edition is kind of silly and pointless... I will be running a Battalion and a Spearhead so Ill probs have 10CP to start with, my army as a whole will be changing. I was always a Stygies boy but I might be going to a more mobile Mars list. Not everyone builds castles and I always ran Strafing Firing Run with my Kastellans, as everyone knows, I wasnt an auto root and shoot twice player, I preferred the mobility.
Now im saving a CP from that specialist detachment and a CP everytime i would have normally have wanted to move my Kastellans with no heavy penalty. I never saw anyone but you run Agripinaa, Ive seen Lucius a few time and Stygies alot. At the end of the day your going to have to make cuts to your list, like I will, like the next Admech player will. We will adapt to the new edition.
I suspect our armies will shoot up 15-20% So our 2k lists will most likely be 1600-1750pts. It too soon to have the doom and gloom attitude, in a few weeks we can all digest and anaylse what we need to do to stay viable in 9th (which we will 80% sure on that).
Its not about modifying my list pursay i can play an artillery list fine. However by eliminateing variety from list construction you are making for a more dull experience all round if every admech list devolves into the same spearhead and battalion as you put it and other factions follow suit as i think its gonna be less enjoyable. Especially as admech just got the tools to take more advantage of the others but not with tight CP
U02dah4 wrote: Why? Because most admech players are mars artillery lists?
Aggripinaa lists need 9-12 CP just for the agripinas strat dead
Mixed admech lists need 2 CP for a WoM drop in 2 CP for dragoons maybe 4 CP for Ryzaphrones 2CP for corpuscarii and we are already above the 9 dead
Lucius beta 9 times lucius strat alone lol
Stygies + knight lets assume 5 CP for the knight that leaves 2 for the dragoons and oh look 2 left dead
Sure mono mars or a similar stygies build can still run but any of the other common builds are barely/not functional at so low CP
But add 6cp variety again
Then your going to have to change your lists, like we all will. As ive been saying 9th is a different kettle of fish compared to 8th, trying to mash your current army into this new edition is kind of silly and pointless... I will be running a Battalion and a Spearhead so Ill probs have 10CP to start with, my army as a whole will be changing. I was always a Stygies boy but I might be going to a more mobile Mars list. Not everyone builds castles and I always ran Strafing Firing Run with my Kastellans, as everyone knows, I wasnt an auto root and shoot twice player, I preferred the mobility.
Now im saving a CP from that specialist detachment and a CP everytime i would have normally have wanted to move my Kastellans with no heavy penalty. I never saw anyone but you run Agripinaa, Ive seen Lucius a few time and Stygies alot. At the end of the day your going to have to make cuts to your list, like I will, like the next Admech player will. We will adapt to the new edition.
I suspect our armies will shoot up 15-20% So our 2k lists will most likely be 1600-1750pts. It too soon to have the doom and gloom attitude, in a few weeks we can all digest and anaylse what we need to do to stay viable in 9th (which we will 80% sure on that).
Its not about modifying my list pursay i can play an artillery list fine. However by eliminateing variety from list construction you are making for a more dull experience all round if every admech list devolves into the same spearhead and battalion as you put it and other factions follow suit as i think its gonna be less enjoyable. Especially as admech just got the tools to take more advantage of the others but not with tight CP
There will be a fair few armies outside of Admech which will experience this problem, some armies live and die by stratagems like Orkz, others dont really care too much about them. I think its good for the game that stratagems become more rare and meaningful, really half the stratagems should just be core rules on datasheets. Why you guy suddenly forgets to use a dataspike mid battle but then next turn when you gain a CP he remembers is so dumb.
Maybe we are in the running for a new Codex with Necrons and Marines, seeing how we are one the older armies left and the age still shows irregardless of EW and Vigilus. Its best to wait until we have all the information before we start descending into chaos, even though I myself have done it on my groups whatsapp group about Cut Them Down being pure
@U02dah4
It has always been true that some strategies are more CP intensive than others. We used to manage with even less CP than the amounts you mention.
So yeah, going to have to adapt, just like everyone else, who are in the same boat as we are.
Aaranis wrote: Got my Engine War today ! I have yet to read it but I'll let you know if the leaks didn't show some intel.
Did you just order the book, or did you also order any of the new kits? I'm curious if the Pteraxii kit includes spare guns to build all 5 without the Alpha loadout, but haven't seen any sprue pictures anywhere.
Aaranis wrote: Got my Engine War today ! I have yet to read it but I'll let you know if the leaks didn't show some intel.
Did you just order the book, or did you also order any of the new kits? I'm curious if the Pteraxii kit includes spare guns to build all 5 without the Alpha loadout, but haven't seen any sprue pictures anywhere.
I got the book and bought a box of Serberys, but I didn't open it yet.
First thing I've noticed: the Manipulus' Bolster Weapons ability gives +2" to the range of weapons under 24", and not 3". For 24" weapons it remains unchanged at +6".
Aaranis wrote: Got my Engine War today ! I have yet to read it but I'll let you know if the leaks didn't show some intel.
Did you just order the book, or did you also order any of the new kits? I'm curious if the Pteraxii kit includes spare guns to build all 5 without the Alpha loadout, but haven't seen any sprue pictures anywhere.
I got the book and bought a box of Serberys, but I didn't open it yet.
First thing I've noticed: the Manipulus' Bolster Weapons ability gives +2" to the range of weapons under 24", and not 3". For 24" weapons it remains unchanged at +6".
Weird nerf but okay.
Isnt that the same as the new Imperial Knight Household Tradition Blessed Arms?
Aaranis wrote: Got my Engine War today ! I have yet to read it but I'll let you know if the leaks didn't show some intel.
Did you just order the book, or did you also order any of the new kits? I'm curious if the Pteraxii kit includes spare guns to build all 5 without the Alpha loadout, but haven't seen any sprue pictures anywhere.
I got the book and bought a box of Serberys, but I didn't open it yet.
First thing I've noticed: the Manipulus' Bolster Weapons ability gives +2" to the range of weapons under 24", and not 3". For 24" weapons it remains unchanged at +6".
Weird nerf but okay.
Isnt that the same as the new Imperial Knight Household Tradition Blessed Arms?
Yes it is !
Damn I didn't realise how CHEAP in points both Serberys were. 44 pts for the Raiders, that's 4,88 pts/wound. 61 pts for the Sulphurhounds, that's 6,77 pts/wound. It's insane. It'll probably change a lot for 9th but damn. Why play Vanguards or Rangers, if you've got lots of money you can just swarm the table in cheap wounds that move 12", can either target characters or drown targets at short-range with ignore cover weaponry.
its a running problem GW has with admech, hyper expensive models that are worth jack in points.
60USD box for 44 or 61pts of stuff. Classic gw, classic.....
Yeah, I REALLY wish points will go up for all armies' datasheets so that I don't have to run a thousand models in a 2000 pts list. I almost bought the new Start Collecting but I want to wait until I've read the new transport rules and proper modifications to melee. I love playing an agressive army, tuned around close-range shooting and assault, and Engine War gives me a few ideas. Won't do anything definitive though. But I've come to realise this army is too expensive for me to justify chasing the meta with it, and I'd rather focus on buying and paintings models I love like the Serberys Sulphurhounds. I won't buy the Archeopter because I really dislike flyers in the game.
Aaranis wrote: Yeah, I REALLY wish points will go up for all armies' datasheets so that I don't have to run a thousand models in a 2000 pts list.
Looks like you are in luck - 9th Edition is just around the corner with a points hike on day 1.
Yeah so I've read ! I'm eager to see how they'll manage though, there's bound to be some controversial changes when they're modifying ALL datasheets at once. For all we know the new meta will be horde Custodes or something like that. Anything can happen.
Well, as of now, despite definately not being RAI, Heavy Phosphor Blasters are 0 pts until an FAQ hits.
I definately did expect it today, but... nothing.
So for the next approx. 2 weeks, AdMech reigns absolutely supreme. If you don't like your friends, that is.
Anybody who seriously tries to take 0 point HPBs except on the flyer...lol, let's just say I don't think they're going to be getting a lot of people wanting to play with them again.
Thairne wrote: Well, as of now, despite definately not being RAI, Heavy Phosphor Blasters are 0 pts until an FAQ hits.
I definately did expect it today, but... nothing.
So for the next approx. 2 weeks, AdMech reigns absolutely supreme. If you don't like your friends, that is.
Why would you expect a day one errata/FAQ? They usually didn't land until the following week, and that was when everything wasn't turned on its head from shutdowns. You do know that Saga of the Beast is still waiting on one for similarly awkward proofreading, typos, and rules conflicts? Why would this one land before that?
I'm really hoping the rewritten FW index gives hoplites and peltasts the Forgeworld faction keyword as Hoplites would be amazing with excluding 5s and 6s. Doesnt sound like to much to ask for lol
Though Engine War actively discourages use of FW Knights
Because this one basically unbalances one unit to the point of absolute and total domination.
I am not aware of another fethup that is this undisputable RAW and at the same time so game breaking. Kastelans for 65pts is... insane. You can plonk down 18 of these things for 324 S7 AP -1 D1 shots that ignore cover for 1170 points now. You can basically shoot everything off the table they have LOS to, potentially tabling an entire army T1.
And yet it is not as obtuse as assault weapons not functioning RAW because it is a simply, clearly printed number.
So I expected them to reach out since it was obviously not caught before it went to the printers to prevent such fallout. But since no tournaments or other things take place... well... it's fine I guess. Somehow.
I don't expect any erratas until 9th too, they probably figured that way less people are able to play because of lockdown. And as no tournament will be organised until the release next month, they'll surely let it be for the meantime.
I can't play at my GW store for now, and even then I wouldn't use the 0 pts HPB, it's so cheesy it makes me lactose intolerant.
I haven't seen it discussed here, but the new forgeworld-specific canticle allows you to replace one canticle on the existing table. so i'm sure litany of the electromancer is going to go the way of the dodo.
Waaaaghmaster wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if they leave it and address the issue when they release the 9th edition point adjustments for the robots themselves.
I would be hugely surprised if the 9th edition points values aren't already fixed, and possibly even in the process of already being printed up.
That said, unless they made the same mistake there, the issue is presumably already fixed for 9th.
Waaaaghmaster wrote: I haven't seen it discussed here, but the new forgeworld-specific canticle allows you to replace one canticle on the existing table. so i'm sure litany of the electromancer is going to go the way of the dodo.
incantation of the iron soul will go in some builds nut it is a close call between the two
Waaaaghmaster wrote: I haven't seen it discussed here, but the new forgeworld-specific canticle allows you to replace one canticle on the existing table. so i'm sure litany of the electromancer is going to go the way of the dodo.
incantation of the iron soul will go in some builds nut it is a close call between the two
Remember morale is supposed to matter more in 9th...
I'm actually finding the new list building restrictions quite annoying. It's refreshing; But annoying lol.
I dont want all those extra troops and elite choices in a brigade. All our utility is now in FA, our damage dealers are at least spread across HS, Troops and Elites. But it's really only one or two choices from each of those.
My group generally only goes to 1500pts, that might change, but that's what we use currently just so we can get more games in per day. I only need 1 or 2 elites and I certainly dont need 6 troops choices so there's actually a fair amount of tax for me.
But a battalion only allows 3 FA and Ballistarii are too good not to use after EW, I was already using a blob of 4-6 anyway, now I want to add a squad of pteraxii and 2 squads of raiders.
It's only 1cp but I wouldn't be a follower of the omnissiah if the efficiency of adding a Vanguage just for one or two extra FA choices didn't bother me lol
so..looking over the new stuff in engine war, I can see a use for both skystalkers and sterylizors..but I'm struggling to find a use for sulpherhounds or raiders.
for raiders, I can see using their "skirmishing line" ability to push out from your deployment zone, and then use their strategem to deny an early game charge..but not seeing much beyond that.
Yes. Their pts cost.
You pay 4.7 pts per wound for a sniping, 12" moving, 4+ save thing that basically cannot ne caught in melee if you don't want it to that can occasionally pling a wound of a character and zoom about taking objectives. And with 3W, you need to either spend a lot of small arms fire on them or some BIG guns. A single raider takes an autocannon wound and keeps trucking, so you need, depending on enemy BS, quite a few shots to kill them that wont go into what you dont want to die.
Compare that to a humble Guardsman that costs 4 pts...
They are an amazing screen and a good, cheap mobile unit.
Sulphurhounds are basically the same, but whereas raiders are defensively minded, sulphurhounds are the aggressive variant of the same thing. Instead of retreating and skirmishing around the outer lines, being a screen, the hounds are there to clear the screen.
Ive already got 18 raiders so that shows what i think.
Now i play board control not castle admech.
So as above pts/Wd is pretty big
On top of that on mass we have character sniping which can be awesome vs some armies and we dont really have another cheap option (arqurbusses being unreliable).
Finnally we have the pre game move which is huge as makes it probably you can charge the enemy on T1
A squad of 9 puts out a decent number of attacks perfect for screen killing and delay.
This can be buffed quite nicely with the new ryza canticle, the omniscient mask and biochemical aggression wl trait
I also really like the strat. As if i 3/4 kill but wrap there screenso cant be shot and then get counter charged i can fallback to safety
Beyond their ability to screen and deny assaults (which is powerful in itself), I don't see it. they have an 18" assault 2 weapon (yes with a chance to cause mortal wounds), but for that to be truly effective you need more than 3 models in the squad. At $60/box that is $180 for a max-sized unit, which is what I think you would need.
Waaaaghmaster wrote: Beyond their ability to screen and deny assaults (which is powerful in itself), I don't see it. they have an 18" assault 2 weapon (yes with a chance to cause mortal wounds), but for that to be truly effective you need more than 3 models in the squad. At $60/box that is $180 for a max-sized unit, which is what I think you would need.
Find an alternative. Don't give GW money for a model that's too expensive. It's as simple as that.
As was pointed out earlier, if I ever pick up Raiders (after I work my way through 3 Start Collecting boxes and get a Knight and some Armigers), I'm going to pick up two boxes of Cold One Knights and a box of Skitarii at a total $100 for 10 Raiders. The conversion looks super simple: cut the cape off the Skitarii, use the Knight's hips and thigh, and replace the knee down with Skitarii. If I really wanted, I could green-stuff on some plates, but the raptors look so out-there in 40k I don't think it'd be necessary.
Waaaaghmaster wrote: Beyond their ability to screen and deny assaults (which is powerful in itself), I don't see it. they have an 18" assault 2 weapon (yes with a chance to cause mortal wounds), but for that to be truly effective you need more than 3 models in the squad. At $60/box that is $180 for a max-sized unit, which is what I think you would need.
£PM is irrelevent in calculating whether a model is good.
The unit is good it is also a complete rip off in terms of real money
(I think two maxed size units makes more sense in game terms( so double your cost)
Things that are cheap in points but expensive in $$$ are always a hot topic for gripes at GW, and its totally justified.
Orks have been complaining about Mek Gunz since they showed up in 7th, and it wasnt even "as bad" back then. Almost a $2USD per point ratio on that thing for the Smasha Gun, which is the only one worth using at that.
Admech are going down that route almost on an entire codex scale. The only unit that doesnt feel super expensive for what they are for me are the basic ranger/vanguard, and even theyre more expensive than other armies' basic troop comparatively. Priced like an elitist army, function like a semi-horde.
Yeah only Kastelan Robots feel decently priced for me, at least in AdMech terms. Kataphron Breachers are also a disaster, it used to hurt physically when I read those lists with 15 Breachers not long ago.
But back on topic of tactics: Raiders/Sulphurhounds are criminally undercosted, if I had to optimise I'd play the tax amount of troops, and spam this cavalry because even if they die, they cost so little I wouldn't care. it's 4-5 pts/wound for a highly mobile profile. Yes the Raiders don't have devastating firepower but for their cost it's way better than Galvanic Rifles.
Going more on a thematic and fun route (for me) I'd like to toy with the radioactive dogmas, to send lots of Sulphurhounds debuff units at 3", while Vanguards in Duneriders follow to shoot at short range with the new Warlord trait that give -1AP in half ranged shooting riding along. Then I'd have my Fistelans with flamers following, Dragoons and the usual. Wouldn't be the most optimised, but would be very fun I think.
I'm a bit torn. It's going to depend on the size of the transports but I think the list can last without CC which is why I'm testing it out. Especially because against most of those hordes they'd have trouble clearing the 40 basic infantry to get to the meaty parts.
Also I kinda want to try a 6-8 dunerider list. But I don't want to pay $600 retail just for the transports to try it out.....
Right. Other lists do this sort of thing. But I worry, since I don't think our Skitarii are comparable to Guard.
GW is clever. They made a $75 model our cheap transport and our cheap tank.
Then again, here's me with the 10 Ironstriders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Hey strangers! Been a long time, but I see some familiar names.
I lost the hobby bug after a cross-country move but with AdMech finally getting a transport kit all their own, I'm thinking of jumping back in.
What is the meta like nowadays? How are AdMech doing? I'm way out of the loop!
I am excited at the prospect of putting my Fulgurite Priests on the table. They never did make it when they had to slog across the table on foot, but now the idea of them getting somewhere and actually getting into combat is just awesome!
Welcome home.
ITC changed the rules for the faction. You now have to run pure AdMech with the option of one Knight in a Super-heavy Auxiliary detachment.
If you want my opinion on what's good:
Mars Gunline
Mars Breachers to screen, Mars Kastelans using Cybernetica Cohort to eliminate heavy shooting penalties or bring Mars Grav Destroyers to use Elimination Volley. Complement with Stygies Dragoon Bomb or Krast Crusader. Accompany with Rusty 17 for CP. Very consistent. Some versions use a Mars Brigade.
Forgeworld Soup
This tries to cherry pick Forgeworld stratagems in a Brigade or 2-3 Battalions. 6-12 Ryza Plasma Destroyers with the Servitor Maniple formation are the core. Support with Breachers, Lucius Corpuscarii, Mars Infiltrators, Assassins, Stygies Dragoon Bomb, or Stygies Drills+Fulgurites. Very risky, but it's had good results in some Midwest tourneys.
The "Justin Lois" List
This is AdMech melee (Stygies Drills+Fulgurites, Stygies Dragoon Bomb), Graia Rusty 17, backed by a Krast Crusader or Raven Castellan for shooting. HQ gets Necromechanic for repairing the Knight. This list is beginning to lose its appeal though, since lots of lists are still specialized against Knights.
Hi Suzuteo and other Ad Mec fans!
As a brand new player (building my first box of Skitaari right now) this break down has been very helpful!
Your description of a "Mars Gunline" seems like my idea of a starting force, but I had some questions:
Can this type of list exist at 1000 points?
What is/are Rusty 17?
I love the idea of having Ad Mec surrounding a single Knight (always wanted to build one) - does anyone have a recommendation for a list with a single knight with loadout? If one exists?
With my first Skitaari box, I have built the Ranger arquebus and I was wondering what other load-outs I should I build? Or just build regular Rangers and the Alpha?
I have a "start collecting" on the way too. Should I build 5 rangers and 5 Vanguard? What weapons would anyone suggest for these folks? Also on the Onager - I was leaning toward Icarus Array and Cognis heavy Stubber, but the -1 to non-flyers made me pause; is the Blaster a better middle of the road choice?
Thanks for any help!
Strig
the pts and list construction system are changeing in the next couple of months so when it comes to the 1000pt question its difficult to say accurately - currently vanguard tend to be preferable to rangers but if you want a bit more information
is a good resource for learning a little about what things do
the rusty 17 is code for the cheapest detatchment of admech (2 enginseers and 15 skittarii) taken for CP - however as we are transitioning to ninth we know things wont work that way shortly
The raiders are seriously hampered by not being infantry and not having fly. They are just begging to be move-blocked, terrain-blocked, or counter-wrapped. A big unit of raiders in particular is a nightmare to use on the table; the combination of huge cavalry bases and the cavalry keyword is miserable on any map with decent terrain coverage.
The only army they're going to seriously disrupt is a gunline without screening units, i.e. a list that is badly built and not competitive anyway. For anything else they're just a free kill that at best serves as a speedbump, and at worst allows your opponent free movement and a wrap as it moves up the board, unless you spend a very costly 2CP.
This may change in 9th if infantry and fly stop being such huge advantages.But right now, I'd much rather have sterylizors instead, which are much more flexible and therefore useful in every game.
yukishiro1 wrote: The raiders are seriously hampered by not being infantry and not having fly. They are just begging to be move-blocked, terrain-blocked, or counter-wrapped. A big unit of raiders in particular is a nightmare to use on the table; the combination of huge cavalry bases and the cavalry keyword is miserable on any map with decent terrain coverage.
The only army they're going to seriously disrupt is a gunline without screening units, i.e. a list that is badly built and not competitive anyway. For anything else they're just a free kill that at best serves as a speedbump, and at worst allows your opponent free movement and a wrap as it moves up the board, unless you spend a very costly 2CP.
This may change in 9th if infantry and fly stop being such huge advantages.But right now, I'd much rather have sterylizors instead, which are much more flexible and therefore useful in every game.
I see your point. But 378 pts for 3x9 Raiders makes 81 wounds on 4+/6++, and all these wounds shoot at S4 with potential of mortal wounds (+ the sergeant's pistol really good againt Primaris), and charge really decently with 3A each at S4 with one or two at AP-1. They have a crazy move + scout move, can target characters, have a nice stratagem... I see your point about movement being hindered and you're right, they're still cavalry and can't go through walls, climb steps etc. But they're not your only option in the army, you still have Fulgurites, Skitarii or the new Pteraxii for all these roles. The opponent is welcome to have a free kill on these dudes, they're not valuable due to their cost, and attacking them means not attacking your gunline screened behind.
Pteraxii are awesome I agree, but they're 8,5 pts/w, twice the Raiders. You're going to want to use them with more precision to remove specific target or lock a valuable shooty unit in CC. I wouldn't spam the board with them honestly, 2W models are much easier to remove than 3W ones and they're costlier. Doesn't make them bad though ! Their melee profile on the charge packs a punch against infantry, their problem is reaching it before getting shot at. Either DS + charge or on board and rush through. They'd be my priority target this way, and I wouldn't let them close the gap if I faced them. Anything with wings get gunned down first if I can help it, personally.
IMO Assault 24" with flat ap-1, T4 and either 2 attacks or a WS of 3+ would have been ideal. But they are so cheap pointswise, which is why they are good.
But overall I dont like that a lot of our units arent really outstanding and have their cheap pointscost as the main upside.
yukishiro1 wrote: The raiders are seriously hampered by not being infantry and not having fly. They are just begging to be move-blocked, terrain-blocked, or counter-wrapped. A big unit of raiders in particular is a nightmare to use on the table; the combination of huge cavalry bases and the cavalry keyword is miserable on any map with decent terrain coverage.
The only army they're going to seriously disrupt is a gunline without screening units, i.e. a list that is badly built and not competitive anyway. For anything else they're just a free kill that at best serves as a speedbump, and at worst allows your opponent free movement and a wrap as it moves up the board, unless you spend a very costly 2CP.
This may change in 9th if infantry and fly stop being such huge advantages.But right now, I'd much rather have sterylizors instead, which are much more flexible and therefore useful in every game.
if you havn't charged there screen and wrapped them t1 your useing them wrong at 24"+ D6" +Charge + extra if you use a manipulus I cant see many armies you wont reach on most deployments
yukishiro1 wrote: The raiders are seriously hampered by not being infantry and not having fly. They are just begging to be move-blocked, terrain-blocked, or counter-wrapped. A big unit of raiders in particular is a nightmare to use on the table; the combination of huge cavalry bases and the cavalry keyword is miserable on any map with decent terrain coverage.
The only army they're going to seriously disrupt is a gunline without screening units, i.e. a list that is badly built and not competitive anyway. For anything else they're just a free kill that at best serves as a speedbump, and at worst allows your opponent free movement and a wrap as it moves up the board, unless you spend a very costly 2CP.
This may change in 9th if infantry and fly stop being such huge advantages.But right now, I'd much rather have sterylizors instead, which are much more flexible and therefore useful in every game.
if you havn't charged there screen and wrapped them t1 your useing them wrong at 24"+ D6" +Charge + extra if you use a manipulus I cant see many armies you wont reach on most deployments
That's a valid point. However, are these really something you want in CC? With T3 and 4+ saves, they aren't going to hold up well when it comes time for your opponent to swing back.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really wish these guys got the option for the phosphur blast carbine instead of the sulphur hounds
Target priority is key with that mentality.
Anything you'd want them to fight shouldnt be able to reliably hurt them back hard enough to be a problem. Generally if the unit isnt dedicated melee or a Marine they arent going to do much damage to you (not NO damage, not much damage) in return and any proper melee they do have nearby now has the conundrum of "do i deal with these things or do i move forward and do the job i was brought for in the first place)
Even Marines its still an AP0 attack in most cases and not an absolute gakton of attacks.
But moving 24+D6+Charge is most likely enough to skirt by the frontline screeners and get something that really, really does not want to be in melee. Unless youre facing orks, guard, or tau people tend to not have a FULL screen on all sides, just enough to block deepstrikers which doesnt block something super fast getting by.
Do Admech have a redeploy mechanic anywhere? that too would be useful for this.
Pteraxii can now jump in and out of reserves, and there's a new strategem that lets ruststalkers leave a table edge and appear from another in the same turn.
My take is that you could as things are currently written, but expect it to be faq'ed
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I think the stratoraptor might end up being more useful than some are expecting. with the raptorial strafing fire strategem, that gives you 6 heavy phosphor blaster shots, and 2 cognis lascannon shots that will hit on a 2+. Combine that with 20-50" movement and the ability to take 2 90-degree pivots, I think these will go a long way towards negating artillery hiding behind terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post: well, 2+ if the new mars canticle is active
I could see that 1CP Strat being used situationally. But really, 6 heavy phosphor blaster shots and 2 lascannon shots aren't really doing me much good in the grand scheme of things and are hardly going to warrant 1CP to hit a ground target at +1BS ...
And with vehicle LOS in 8th, the maneuverability is not really necessary on the Stratoraptor, right? Now, in 9th, that could be a different story.
yukishiro1 wrote: The raiders are seriously hampered by not being infantry and not having fly. They are just begging to be move-blocked, terrain-blocked, or counter-wrapped. A big unit of raiders in particular is a nightmare to use on the table; the combination of huge cavalry bases and the cavalry keyword is miserable on any map with decent terrain coverage.
The only army they're going to seriously disrupt is a gunline without screening units, i.e. a list that is badly built and not competitive anyway. For anything else they're just a free kill that at best serves as a speedbump, and at worst allows your opponent free movement and a wrap as it moves up the board, unless you spend a very costly 2CP.
This may change in 9th if infantry and fly stop being such huge advantages.But right now, I'd much rather have sterylizors instead, which are much more flexible and therefore useful in every game.
if you havn't charged there screen and wrapped them t1 your useing them wrong at 24"+ D6" +Charge + extra if you use a manipulus I cant see many armies you wont reach on most deployments
And then they just counter-wrap *you*, and you've traded several hundred points + gangbusters for a cheap screen and given your opponent the ability to avoid your shooting for a turn as they move up the board.
Against any army with any kind of counter-charge, all you're doing is spending a bunch of points to give them a maxed secondary, free movement, and shooting immunity. Doesn't seem effective in most match-ups.
I can see the argument for them in a stygies melee list or something like that. They're a pretty cheap way to clear screens T1, something ad mech struggle with. But otherwise, I think in most games you're just throwing away points for limited gain, except against badly made or played lists that you ought to be beating anyway.
The Forgemaster wrote: Is it possible to combine Stygies Pre-game move with the Raiders one?
i.e. Move 9" with Stygies, then the raiders move & advance before game 12"+ D6 (keeping 9" away). Then turn one move again?
Yes but most likely you don't want to as in a lot of deployments you apply that to an omniscient mask wielding character to buff them and if you need to do both your likely out of buff range. But it is a nieche option.
i dont think i'd ever try to get omnimask on raiders.
It BARELY works for Dragoons that hit whatever is at the front deployment, and thats only if they daisy-chain a little. Raiders are even faster than Dragoons, and smaller profile/base size.
No character is gonna be able to follow them for a T1 charge in the enemy deployment field.
yukishiro1 wrote: The raiders are seriously hampered by not being infantry and not having fly. They are just begging to be move-blocked, terrain-blocked, or counter-wrapped. A big unit of raiders in particular is a nightmare to use on the table; the combination of huge cavalry bases and the cavalry keyword is miserable on any map with decent terrain coverage.
The only army they're going to seriously disrupt is a gunline without screening units, i.e. a list that is badly built and not competitive anyway. For anything else they're just a free kill that at best serves as a speedbump, and at worst allows your opponent free movement and a wrap as it moves up the board, unless you spend a very costly 2CP.
This may change in 9th if infantry and fly stop being such huge advantages.But right now, I'd much rather have sterylizors instead, which are much more flexible and therefore useful in every game.
if you havn't charged there screen and wrapped them t1 your useing them wrong at 24"+ D6" +Charge + extra if you use a manipulus I cant see many armies you wont reach on most deployments
And then they just counter-wrap *you*, and you've traded several hundred points + gangbusters for a cheap screen and given your opponent the ability to avoid your shooting for a turn as they move up the board.
Against any army with any kind of counter-charge, all you're doing is spending a bunch of points to give them a maxed secondary, free movement, and shooting immunity. Doesn't seem effective in most match-ups.
I can see the argument for them in a stygies melee list or something like that. They're a pretty cheap way to clear screens T1, something ad mech struggle with. But otherwise, I think in most games you're just throwing away points for limited gain, except against badly made or played lists that you ought to be beating anyway.
They can't counter wrap if you do it right because of the run away strat that lets you fallback 12 from combat if another unit charges you. With a unit of 9 cavalry bases you form a pretty big line/block thats hard to surround. While the combat unit doing so ends up stuck in the open while your free to shoot next turn.
Although with 2 units as i intend i will plan to use 1 to tie enemy units up the turn and limit there movement up the board
Raiders are terrible in melee. 3 WS4+ STR 4 attacks, 1 at -1ap, is junk for models on bases that large. The most likely reason you'd be charging stuff with them is to tag or wrap, so why would you want rerolls? That doesn't help you do that.
One thing I am considering doing is to bring a block of 6x Autocannon Ballistarii for my gunline. The buffs you can stack are pretty gross:
1. Cawl rerolls, Daeda targeting
2. Magos HOWLT explodes on a 6 to hit; Logos HOWLT improves AP-1 on a 6 to hit
3. Mars Canticle adds +1S, making Autocannons S8 AP-1 D2; move 10" and shoot with no penalty
4. Protector Doctrina Imperative adds +2 to hit; advance and shoot at BS3+
5. Pattern Iteration Identified adds +1 to wound against non-Titanic
6. Wrath of Mars adds 1 mortal wound, procs on 5+ due to #5
7. Cognis Overwatch at BS3+
In summary, you have an average of 24x S8 AP-1 D2 shots; BS2 at 58" effective range; BS3 reroll all at 58"+D6 or 58"+2D6 with Dunestriders. Extra hit and AP-1 on 6 to hit, mortal on 5 to wound. T6 4+/6++ and 36 wounds. 360 points.
EDIT: Also need to keep in mind that S8 with +1 to wound against non-Titanic is essentially like S15 against most enemies. These things absolutely shred T6-7 vehicles.
They can't counter wrap if you do it right because of the run away strat that lets you fallback 12 from combat if another unit charges you. With a unit of 9 cavalry bases you form a pretty big line/block thats hard to surround. While the combat unit doing so ends up stuck in the open while your free to shoot next turn.
Although with 2 units as i intend i will plan to use 1 to tie enemy units up the turn and limit there movement up the board
There are a lot of problems with this. First, they can likely wrap you back on your turn using the screen you are wrapping, unless you can surround or base the entire unit. It only takes two models to trap an oval base, BTW, so they generally only need one model that isn't based to accomplish it. Even if you manage to wrap them without being wrapped back, all their counter charge needs to do is move to a place adjacent to one of their models that's being wrapped, a bit over 1 inch away, and they've trapped you such that you can't fall back, by using the two units in conjunction.
There are just so many ways to ruin this plan, and even if you get it right, the upside is so small. It would be one thing if getting this off was a game-winning combo, but it isn't - at the very best, you have a turn to shoot at them, whereas without the unit...you'd probably still have a turn to shoot at them?
If all you really fundamentally want to do is move-block someone for a turn, you don't need 18 raiders to do that.
Vineheart01 wrote: i dont think i'd ever try to get omnimask on raiders.
It BARELY works for Dragoons that hit whatever is at the front deployment, and thats only if they daisy-chain a little. Raiders are even faster than Dragoons, and smaller profile/base size.
No character is gonna be able to follow them for a T1 charge in the enemy deployment field.
=24-29" range on T1 now we add to that a serberys base
And as long as its within an inch of another serberys base it can fight and that serberys can be within an inch of the enemy.
Thats pretty deep into an enemy deployment zone. Not to mention loseing a serberus base CC you can always extend that further. So no its not that difficult
Suzuteo wrote: IMO, you should not invest anything in your Raiders. They are a skirmishing unit that does its job if they get brutally wiped on turn one...
Yeah I think this is correct.
IMO the best thing about them is the ability to moveblock even if you aren't going first, because the scout move happens before the game begins. I revise my opinion a little bit - I think they may have some value for this purpose; it is the only thing I can think of that they do that there aren't really any other candidates for. I'm still not sure it's a job worth doing in most ad mech lists - the risk of the counter-wrap is so large that it really only makes sense in lists where you don't care if they wrap them - but in one where it is worth doing, I can see the value. Certainly not for taking 18, though.
They'd just be so, so much better if they were infantry, though.
They can't counter wrap if you do it right because of the run away strat that lets you fallback 12 from combat if another unit charges you. With a unit of 9 cavalry bases you form a pretty big line/block thats hard to surround. While the combat unit doing so ends up stuck in the open while your free to shoot next turn.
Although with 2 units as i intend i will plan to use 1 to tie enemy units up the turn and limit there movement up the board
There are a lot of problems with this. First, they can likely wrap you back on your turn using the screen you are wrapping, unless you can surround or base the entire unit. It only takes two models to trap an oval base, BTW, so they generally only need one model that isn't based to accomplish it. Even if you manage to wrap them without being wrapped back, all their counter charge needs to do is move to a place adjacent to one of their models that's being wrapped, a bit over 1 inch away, and they've trapped you such that you can't fall back, by using the two units in conjunction.
There are just so many ways to ruin this plan, and even if you get it right, the upside is so small. It would be one thing if getting this off was a game-winning combo, but it isn't - at the very best, you have a turn to shoot at them, whereas without the unit...you'd probably still have a turn to shoot at them?
If all you really fundamentally want to do is move-block someone for a turn, you don't need 18 raiders to do that.
2 models only if you misposition they want to be positioned in a follow my leader style eg a 5 model length ways cavalry line or the 3x3 L generally they are not moving far enough around
So no your rarely wrapped
So given your not wrapped im counter charged i move 12 away
Sure the unit surrounding tactic works but with 18 cavalry bases thats pretty difficult to do largely because of your surface area and 1 of those units is a sacrifice you really need to get behind them and that takes a CC unit with the fly keyword that didnt DS. Tough day vs BA but nothing is perfect.
E.g a 10 model side on front line is 600mm or 23.6inches not counting small gaps
Sure positioning is cruicial but if your sacrificeing 1 the other is savable
The answer to what i gain is the move block for two turns + kill 2 small characters + smash a screening unit or two.
That time allows me to use other blocking support units. - Dragoons and DS Corpuscarii.
The aim is to keep the enemy pinned as long as possible and board control
I can't imagine you're going to have much success - especially with the idea that anybody's going to let you snipe their characters - but I wish you luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it still cracks me up that the Sterylizor Alpha doesn't have talons even though the rest of his unit does.
Im not suggesting they let me - but if you are at their deployment zone or in it with an 18" range your likely in range against most lists. And if they deploy entirely in the back 6 to prevent this ive still blocked them out the deployment zone.
A reasonable amount but not high density. London GT/Nova L's would be a good example. On a stationary unit its a problem why i am not that keen on dakka bots but when you move 24"+ on T1 its pretty hard for most armies to hide most units unless you back 6" but then your doing what i want
Seen a few people having built doggos and pteraxii now, man are those batmen big! One guy estimates each of them takes up as much space physically as as kastellan! Boy do they look cool though lol
Raiders are nowhere near as cool looking as sulphurhounds, boy do I hate my rules-centric brain at this point.
I also want a stratorapter for cool factor, but at the moment my budget is going on 6 more Breachers/Destroyers (I had 3) 10 Pteraxii, 12 doggos and a new start collecting.
Octovol wrote:Seen a few people having built doggos and pteraxii now, man are those batmen big! One guy estimates each of them takes up as much space physically as as kastellan! Boy do they look cool though lol
Raiders are nowhere near as cool looking as sulphurhounds, boy do I hate my rules-centric brain at this point.
I also want a stratorapter for cool factor, but at the moment my budget is going on 6 more Breachers/Destroyers (I had 3) 10 Pteraxii, 12 doggos and a new start collecting.
I'm already painting one of my Sulphurhounds ! The models are gorgeous. I found I'm happier in the hobby when I buy and assemble models I love rather than those with the best rules for the next 3 months.
Octovol wrote:Seen a few people having built doggos and pteraxii now, man are those batmen big! One guy estimates each of them takes up as much space physically as as kastellan! Boy do they look cool though lol
Raiders are nowhere near as cool looking as sulphurhounds, boy do I hate my rules-centric brain at this point.
I also want a stratorapter for cool factor, but at the moment my budget is going on 6 more Breachers/Destroyers (I had 3) 10 Pteraxii, 12 doggos and a new start collecting.
I'm already painting one of my Sulphurhounds ! The models are gorgeous. I found I'm happier in the hobby when I buy and assemble models I love rather than those with the best rules for the next 3 months.
I have a great deal of internal conflict right now
i imagine the rider will define which is which far more than the mount. I plan to use the horse head from raiders, it looks so much better. Plus i like the idea of them having to open their mouth to breath fire instead of having a flamer-face permanently
Kanluwen wrote: -1 to hit when firing during combat, no blast weapons.
Where have you read that they can't use blast weapons ? The rule doesn't prevent any type of weapon being fired in melee. But yes, -1 to Hit for Heavy weapons, fair trade I think. It's not a total freedom to shoot wherever we want though, so locking Vehicles in CC will still be a thing, it's just that they'll shoot back.
At any rate it's still quite neat. Some options won't be as favoured as others, like a Neutronager will have a hard time cleaning up the horde locking it, while Dakkastelans will have it easier. It's a buff to my Fistelans with flamers as they won't give a damn when bogged down by infantry now. Eat 4d6 S5 AP-1 hits at close range.
EDIT: Seems your claim of blast weapons was said orally in the stream. Weird that it's not written in the rule though.
Here's a list of changes said in the stream, courtesy of the 40k News thread:
- notes by Joe#0064 on the Warhammer 40K Discord.
===== RULES =====
- tanks can now shoot into combat. They may engage units within an inch as well. -1 to hit if you're shooting with your Tank/Monster at something you're in combat with. You can't fire blast weapons either.
- reasons for change; as an example, it was frustrating and immersion breaking that a Nurgling could stop a Land Raider firing in combat. Ultimately, for balance and narrative reasons.
- Monsters benefit from the changes to fighting in buildings; e.g. a squad of Guardsman on the first floor is no longer safe from the Hive Tyrant eye-level to them.
- Stu Black; "Tyranids and Imperial Guard will benefit greatly from the new rules. In general, anything that is a mechanised force or able to field plenty of monsters."
- "sticking a model together because it looks great" is less of an issue now. Specialised / general loadouts on models are much more useful.
- the changes should encourage more dynamic / mobile play, as opposed to "WW1 bunkers engaging each other at a distance."
- challenges; changes to terrain make it harder to get a clear view of the battlefield, so units will need to move around more.
- -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy weapon only applies to infantry.
- Stu Black; "with the new CP / Detachments I think we'll see more vehicle/monster-heavy armies as a result."
- Eddie Eccles; "people have rightfully pointed out that the Land Raider (and variants) will benefit greatly from the changes."
Love that the penalty for heavy weapons is gone from vehicles, Ballistarii become less paradoxal that way.
yeah heavy flamer type weaponry got a lot more tasty in 9th. Flamers big problem is you generally couldnt use it unless you were wicked fast or only really got to use it once before being stuck in combat.
Now vehicles/monsters can just keep firing them. That is super useful.
It was literally the first thing said with regards to this whole thing. Blast weapons aren't mentioned, because the rules for them will apparently mention that they cannot be used in Engagement Range.
The whole "shooting into combat" thing seems to be conflating the rule of them being able to fire while engaged as "shooting into combat".
Personal wishlisting tidbit: Cognis weapons ignore the -1 to hit penalty for Heavy fired in Engagement Range. It would open up a whole new aspect to the relatively limited usage associated with Overwatch.
Kanluwen wrote: It was literally the first thing said with regards to this whole thing. Blast weapons aren't mentioned, because the rules for them will apparently mention that they cannot be used in Engagement Range.
The whole "shooting into combat" thing seems to be conflating the rule of them being able to fire while engaged as "shooting into combat".
Personal wishlisting tidbit:
Cognis weapons ignore the -1 to hit penalty for Heavy fired in Engagement Range. It would open up a whole new aspect to the relatively limited usage associated with Overwatch.
I didn't listen to the stream, hence my ignorance, just read the article. Thanks for the clarification
Now that vehicles no longer have -1 to hit, would this change what army people take. e.g. to Lucius instead or is the +1 Strength on heavy weapons still better?
trying to think of what that mars canticle even affects if vehicles normally ignore heavy penalties.
All i can think of is the pointless HQ guns we generally dont care about or Arquabus, which is denied shooting in general if it moved anyway.
That being said, Mars still has Cawl and Wrath of Mars strat. So its still a tough choice to use something else, the S+1 is the tipping point for a lot of our heavy weapons.
Didnt you know? It was written with 9th ed in mind!
Fistelans look better now. Dakkastelans finally can move and do something. Same for Ballistari
With the canticle, you can.. uh... move your Arquebi and Servitors....
But tbh, the best part is the +1S. That one is still tremendously powerful.
I do wonder though if the effective removal of quite a few abilities will be compensated tho... Onager, Dunerider/Disintegrator
Haha exactly. Their statement is completely invalidated by this new universal rule, lol.
Why do you think fistelans are better now? Just because they can fire their flamers in melee? Have yours ever remained in combat that long? Mine will delete something with punching twice and then just get focused, if they ever made it that far to begin with.
And yeah, that was the biggest special rule to our tanks. So what now?
Well they might not be GOOD, they are simply better and can be less bogged down by a hordy thing. Still not worth taking over Dakkastelans, but fingers crossed for a change in the protocols to make em run faster or charge further.
Lets hope this is not another dumbing down of admech identity as they did with moving to 8th...
Vehicle rules we've been waiting on. This looks good for us being able to shoot into combat. Little worried how much all our stuff is going to cost now.
Like some others have said now one of our Ad Mech special rules is universal so hopefully we get a new codex sooner rather than later. I'd like it if we got some more interesting rules.
Ive used fisticuff bots a few times just because i felt like it and they tend to stay in combat alot, since they almost always end up in combat with something that just tarpits them. I've never had them actually hit something i wanted them to lol. Being able to use flamer in melee would massively help with that issue, since their melee may hurt hard but it doesnt hit often due to WS4 and not many attacks. Yeah they can attack twice but the problem is its not literally doubling their attacks so they can be interrupted between attacks and your saves are weakened in the process.
Will it make them usable over dakkabots? I would be shocked if they got good enough to at least be "usable in the right scenario" let alone good enough to compete with dakkabots, considering how much crap dakkabots are able to use in Engine War that melee bots cannot.
I'm expecting some massive change to Melee at this point. Because otherwise, the benefits for taking shooty vehicle/monster units far outstretches that of any melee ones if you were comparing point for point.
Vineheart01 wrote: if blast is indeed denied shooting into combat, seriously hope flamers dont end up being considered blast.
They are not--or if they are, it seems they will have a caveat allowing for them to operate in combat. Because the examples constantly used were Burnas and Flamers for 'clearing the chaff'.
But again, it's not that they're "denied shooting" simply by being in engagement(there's been no mention of being able to shoot into a combat you're not involved in that I have come across). It's that you cannot resolve an attack with a Blast weapon if there are enemies within Engagement Range. Nothing stopping you from declaring the shots in the hope you clear the chaff out before resolving the Blast weapons.
im fully expecting the hybrid capable vehicles or monsters to skyrocket in price. Theres no way any currently priced walkers suddenly given the ability to shoot in melee as well (even ork ones have decent enough shooting) dont go up in price by a large factor. Especially ones that have access to flamers, a Deffdread with 2x klaws 2x skorchas could just slaughter chaff and then chomp something big afterwords, since chaff really isnt hurting it.
Melee itself probably isnt changing, minus the strat we know of and probably another we dont know of.
edit: Yeah im aware you can declare and hope you can still fire after the other guns cleared the enemy out of combat, wasnt worried about that. That rule basically just exists to allow melee to still bog the vehicle down to a degree, shutting off presumably its main gun only but the rest are still free game.
Vineheart01 wrote: trying to think of what that mars canticle even affects if vehicles normally ignore heavy penalties.
All i can think of is the pointless HQ guns we generally dont care about or Arquabus, which is denied shooting in general if it moved anyway
All the special weapons on our troops. If any model in the unit moved it affects the special weapon model.
Vineheart01 wrote: trying to think of what that mars canticle even affects if vehicles normally ignore heavy penalties.
All i can think of is the pointless HQ guns we generally dont care about or Arquabus, which is denied shooting in general if it moved anyway
All the special weapons on our troops. If any model in the unit moved it affects the special weapon model.
Don't Skitarii not have Heavy Weapons (outside the Arquebus, which CANNOT fire after moving due to its own rule) and Kataphron have a rule to ignore that penalty natively?
Vineheart01 wrote: trying to think of what that mars canticle even affects if vehicles normally ignore heavy penalties.
All i can think of is the pointless HQ guns we generally dont care about or Arquabus, which is denied shooting in general if it moved anyway
All the special weapons on our troops. If any model in the unit moved it affects the special weapon model.
Don't Skitarii not have Heavy Weapons (outside the Arquebus, which CANNOT fire after moving due to its own rule) and Kataphron have a rule to ignore that penalty natively?
Yeah, thats what i was getting at with that. All of our heavy weapons are on our Dominus (and kinda dont care as the weapons suck anyway) or the Arquebus, which CANNOT fire/move anyway.
Everything else either had the rule to ignore it (breacher/destroyers ignore it) or now does because its a vehicle. Most of our infantry use assault or pistol, with a couple rapidfire sprinkled in.
So that half of the Mars canticle is redundant in 9th
Standard Servitors have <Forge World> as a keyword.
There's also the possibility that we'll be able to Advance and fire Heavy Weapons with some of our walkers or that Flyers will natively get a penalty of some kind for firing, associated with their Supersonic Flight.
Ngl, im quite annoyed with the new heavy rule for us.... Whilst it helps the Kastellan and Ironstrider, it literally devalues the Crawler and Hover Platform rules for the Onager and Skorpius. And then the part for the Mars canticle to ignore the heavy penalty.... which now only affects the Dominus and Manipulus.
Your already paying for that ability for the vehicles that ignore the penalty compared to other vehicles, no everyone else gets it and to top it off some vehicles get to fire their turrets weapons twice if they move under half or stand still! Like Leman Russ, Fire Prisms, Repulsor Executioners, Exocrines and Tyrannofex.
I hope Admech get a codex first after Necrons and Space Marines, the age of the dex is really starting to show, Cognis weapons might aswell be just assault weapons at this point, why have the -2 to hit when advancing and Onagers and Skorpius have defunct rules that no every other non infantry unit has.
Whilst the +1 str is nice with Mars, im leaning back to Stygies or even Lucius now unless the datasheets for Onagers and Skorpius change to give them a niche over the other vehicles and monsters in the game.
Im definitely not convinced they did EW in mind with 9th at all at this point
Do remember everything is getting price adjusted.
Things that normally have a rule to ignore heavy may end up being noticably cheap compared to vehicles that didnt before.
Also nothing stops them from releasing a mini-errata saying any existing rule (or cherry pick which ones) that says it ignores heavy penalty instead allows it to adv+shoot heavy weapons at -1 penalty.
And i just noticed something, modifiers are capped at -1 so....cognis -2 doesnt work now lol
Thairne wrote: Well they might not be GOOD, they are simply better and can be less bogged down by a hordy thing. Still not worth taking over Dakkastelans, but fingers crossed for a change in the protocols to make em run faster or charge further.
Lets hope this is not another dumbing down of admech identity as they did with moving to 8th...
Tbh as soon as you switch to Conqueror Protocols you wouldnt even be able to fire the Incendine Combustors into melee anymore anyway. So your best staying in Aegis if you want Fistellans to function best, unless you really reaaaaally wanna punch something dead. The Transuranic Arquebus cant move and fire anyway so only the Dominus and Manipulus are affected by the heavy penalty, so the Mars canticle only helps them with ignoring that penalty.
Fistellans are probably best as Lucius or Ryza with a Prime Hermeticon and Learning of the Genetor for Biochemical Aggression if you really wanna fish for that -4 AP on 6s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vineheart01 wrote: Do remember everything is getting price adjusted.
Things that normally have a rule to ignore heavy may end up being noticably cheap compared to vehicles that didnt before.
Also nothing stops them from releasing a mini-errata saying any existing rule (or cherry pick which ones) that says it ignores heavy penalty instead allows it to adv+shoot heavy weapons at -1 penalty.
And i just noticed something, modifiers are capped at -1 so....cognis -2 doesnt work now lol
If we can trust GW to actually get the points right for once.....
I wouldnt count on a errata for existing rules that say they ignore heavy penalties to instead advance and shoot heavy weapons at -1 penalty as that puts Cognis weapons in a even more weirder spot now.
Cognis can still take the -2 into account, they said on stream you take modifiers into account step by step, but the end result cant be higher or lower than a 1.
So say you get a +1 to hit, then a -2, your at a -1 to hit, or a -1 to hit then +2 you have + 1 to hit. But ive never needed the reason to advance something with a Cognis weapon before, maybe for the Fusilave and Ironstriders.... but they already move quick so
U02dah4 wrote: you need more detail they have also sed modifiers are capped at -1 to hit
Having watching the streams like 3 times over for each, Stu explained how modifiers work now in 9th. He could very well be wrong or misremembering but I dont think so, he even went over how Alaitoc fliers are still ok vs some armies with +1 to hits. Your overall modifier is limited to a -/+ of 1, but the process it takes to get there still takes into account the modifiers in a whole. You could have a -3 to hit and then a +5 but it will still only be a +1 to hit like my example in the above message.
Just like how he said Blast type weapons cant be fired into combat today on stream, its not on the Warcom preview but it is most likely in the rules weve yet to see. So I dont need more detail, its what the rules designer has said. If hes wrong hes wrong, but that would be unlikely.
Classic Cawlbawl with dakkabots looks really strong in 9th. Unless they can wipe out most of the dakkabot unit in a single turn of combat, you're going to blow anything engaged with them right off the table in your own turn no problem, and you can even put a lot of the shots into a different target if you're confident you can wipe out the thing tagging you with less than the full complement.
The big problem with dakkabots in the past was getting tagged, and now it basically barely matters any more.
Cawl + bot unit + 3 disintegrators with indirect sitting in the middle of the board is going to cause massive problems for a lot of lists. Can't come into LOS of the bots or you get blown off the table, can't stay out of LOS or you get worn down by the disintegrators.
To continue on the use of Fistelans (with flamers), the way I've used them was in Lucius in a Cohort Cybernetica. I paid 2 CP for the Robots and the Datasmith to DS, dropped them 9" from my target, used the +3" charge distance stratagem from Cohort and assured a charge really easily. The Datasmith had it a bit harder though but he didn't need to succeed, just to catch them later for repairs. The trick is not to switch them into double fight mode until you're certain you want to kill whatever you're engaged with. By keeping them in Aegis you keep the flamers for shooting at screens, overwatch if needed, and most importantly the 4++ against shooting.
I used them in a single unit of 4 and they didn't die as fast as you'd think. They had a great disruptive role because not everyone can ignore 4 robots punching their way through. Meanwhile I had an Agripinaa Servitor Maniple of 6 Destroyers with plasma shooting alongside 2 Dakkastelans, and the rest of the list. Really fun list. Also I used the reroll 1s to Hit in CC canticle on the turn I wanted them to smash.
Fight twice just got a lot worse, since you can now flamer into combat and Lucius bots now can get a 2+ ignoring AP-1/3++ in aegis.
Of course, the basic problem with them is still that they don't kill stuff very well, whether fighting twice or not. You need re-roll hits or they're just miserably bad; even fighting twice, 400 points of robots does only 12 hits without rerolls, which is pretty terrible. They're only good against the sort of targets no competent player is going to let you get them into.
Oh yes they don't destroy stuff, but they're disruptive and cumbersome, and that helps a lot relieving my gunline of some pressure in the meantime. It's clear that for anti-tank I'd use Neutronagers or Lascannon Ballistarii as it's cheaper and easier.
I never claimed they were competitive, just a lot of fun. I'm eager to see if 9th will help them pass the threshold though, with Engine War there's already some juicy stuff. I wonder if I did well holding off to my purchase of 2x10 Hoplites in Duneriders, as I have no idea of their future for 8th.
Yeah, that's why I think that if you are going to take them, it's probably worth doubling down on what they are good at - sticking around - by taking them lucius, keeping them in aegis, and maybe even considering not bothering with spending 40 points + 2CP for a datasmith to activate the +3 to charge roll. Maybe don't even bother deepstriking them, honestly - you pretty much *want* your opponent shooting at them because good luck shooting a bunch of T7 2+ ignoring AP-1/3++, so why make that difficult?
Of course, for only 10 more points a model, it still just makes more sense to take them as dakka instead, because they don't kill anything in melee anyhow, and that way you can blast stuff off the table with the guns too while being just as good at soaking fire.
Aaranis wrote: Oh yes they don't destroy stuff, but they're disruptive and cumbersome, and that helps a lot relieving my gunline of some pressure in the meantime. It's clear that for anti-tank I'd use Neutronagers or Lascannon Ballistarii as it's cheaper and easier.
Use Autocannon Ballistarii; Lascannons are overkill now. I made a post a few pages back underscoring how ridiculous they now are with the Mars Canticle and their new Pattern stratagem combined with things like Wrath of Mars (procs on 5+ with the aforementioned stratagem). They seriously just shred things.
Aaranis wrote: Oh yes they don't destroy stuff, but they're disruptive and cumbersome, and that helps a lot relieving my gunline of some pressure in the meantime. It's clear that for anti-tank I'd use Neutronagers or Lascannon Ballistarii as it's cheaper and easier.
Use Autocannon Ballistarii; Lascannons are overkill now. I made a post a few pages back underscoring how ridiculous they now are with the Mars Canticle and their new Pattern stratagem combined with things like Wrath of Mars (procs on 5+ with the aforementioned stratagem). They seriously just shred things.
Pattern stratagem?
You mean the combination of doctrina and the new gem for +1 to wound?
Well back when I played Lascannons were good, haven't played in a while so I'll wait to see what 9th does to them before switching weapons on my Ballistarii. But yes, the bonuses are awesome with PA.
You mean the combination of doctrina and the new gem for +1 to wound?
Yes. 6x for 360 points.
24x S8 AP-1 D2, +1 to wound; explodes on 6+ to hit with Magos, AP-1 on 6+ to hit with Logos, mortal on 5+ to wound with Wrath. You can also Dunestrider to drastically increase threat radius, and Cognis Overwatch to screen your gunline.
You mean the combination of doctrina and the new gem for +1 to wound?
Yes. 6x for 360 points.
24x S8 AP-1 D2, +1 to wound; explodes on 6+ to hit with Magos, AP-1 on 6+ to hit with Logos, mortal on 5+ to wound with Wrath. You can also Dunestrider to drastically increase threat radius, and Cognis Overwatch to screen your gunline.
They also benefit hugely from the Servo-focused Auguries custom dogma. That gives them Cawl's re-rolls at half range with the added benefit for it working in Overwatch as well. BS 3+ re-rolling in overwatch? Also with the ap -1 benefit on a 6? Charging them is worse than charging stuff with flamers.
You mean the combination of doctrina and the new gem for +1 to wound?
Yes. 6x for 360 points.
24x S8 AP-1 D2, +1 to wound; explodes on 6+ to hit with Magos, AP-1 on 6+ to hit with Logos, mortal on 5+ to wound with Wrath. You can also Dunestrider to drastically increase threat radius, and Cognis Overwatch to screen your gunline.
I feel like if I was going to do that I would go with Divinations of the Magos combined with fabrication of the artisan instead. Artisan would give you an additional AP on all shots within half range. Doesn't trigger all the time but when it does that a huge boost in damage. In addition, artisan let's your vehicles fall back and shoot with no penalties. May not be as necessary in 9th but that ability will still be very useful in certain situations. That said the additional AP on a 6 to hit works at all ranges, so I can understand why people would pick it, it just feels like it's not going to trigger very often. You're getting what, 24 autocannon shots max, so you're getting roughly four AP 2 wounds out of it, since it only triggers on a natural 6. Also, the other two abilities in it's table are trash, a 4+ MW save from pyskers and an OW boost for infantry. There's just no flexibility there.
I know for my Metallica army Divinations/Fabrication is the combo I plan on running. Makes my sprinting Kastelans far more effective and can really boost any models I tend to run (vanguard, kataphrons, skorpius, ballistarii) Granted I run a very mobile gunline abomination army so being within half range is very easy for me to do. Honestly the only real issue I tend to have is keeping characters in range of the guys they're buffing from time to time, but the ability to roll 2d6 advance pick the highest on my Manipulus aura now should help alleviate that. My sprinting Kastelans now get to move very reliably at a high rate of speed, hit with Ap3 ignores cover a lot of the time, can fall back and shoot, and if I need to root them I can still tack on extra shots on 6's to hit.
These new Warlord traits are probably going to be very key to how our armies are built for the foreseeable future. They have major effects for very low CP expenditure. With the drop most armies have in available CP, we will need to find ways to save on CP wherever possible, and this is a big one. I wouldn't be surprised to see two of these plus a special detachment warlord or two with relics being the main core to army abilities soon, since these abilities are essentially strategems you buy once that work all game, as long as they live and can keep up with their units of course. I understand a lot of people meta armies are not gonna be very good with 9th most likely, but if you have a decent collection of models you should be fine. With model count going down maybe spam won't be as critical to win, a man can hope
I like the new vehicle rules too. They fix every gripe I can think of at first glance, and explains why they didn't bother to give the plane an ignore heavy rule. If blast weapons can't be used that kind of sucks but that's going to depend on if flamers count as blast. I know for guard it's incredible how much these simple changes fixed vehicles in the army that sucked. Vehicles are definitely going to go up in cost now, and I would expect at a higher rate than infantry do. Which I'm all for, the amount of models needed in a 2k game these days is insane. I didn't want more models on the table, I wanted the models I had to matter. These changes seem to go a long way towards that. It also hints admech will probably get a big rework soon because so many of our rules are completely busted by this new edition. But in the meantime at least our stuff won't be useless the moment something touches it in combat.
Anyone tried the skystalkers in a game yet? They seem like a handy Swiss army knife unit and I really want to give them a try. You have movement shenanigans, ability to pin down units for debuffs, MW's on any target you want with little the enemy can do (all that matters is the unit moves over the target, even if only one model actually crossed the target the whole unit can grenade it) and good antihorde shooting. Even their melee isn't completely terrible. I know the sterilizers are more attractive for the flamers and ability to prevent people falling back, but I don't like that their big selling point of melee is just some s5 ap1 1D attacks. Skystalkers on the other hand seem like any game you take them in they will have a use. Fighting hordes? They can fly around clearing screens, maybe sniping characters by hopping over them for MW's and shooting them from behind. Fighting vehicles? They'll pop their MW on a 3+ and can focus on grabbing objectives all around the table while pinning down a key firepower unit. Maybe I'm a little too optimistic but I'm having a hard time thinking of a matchup where they have no use. For just 79pts for 5 if my math is right, even just ability to guaranteed snag linebreaker on the last turn is nifty, and that's ignoring everything else they can do. I really like them.
Cross posting from Reddit. Thank you to user FirstRankFire for posting these details. A lot to like here for us Ad Mech players.
I can see this helping out the Neutron Onagers a bit.
40k Daily Stream 10th June: Blast Weapons & Creations of Bile
More information revealed on what "Blast" weapons will be; a new weapon "type" joining pistol, assault, heavy etc.
* There are over 170 weapons currently in the game that will become Blast weapons, battle cannons, volcano cannons and vortex weapons all cited.
* Blast weapons on vehicles can never fire into melee (see vehicle/monster firing in combat rules [revealed yesterday](https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/09/tanks-are-back-on-trackgw-homepage-post-1/)).
* When firing a Blast weapon at a unit with 6 or more models, each D3 or D6 roll cannot score less than three, i.e. a D6 rolling a 2 = 3, and a D3 is automatically a 3.
* When firing a Blast weapon at a unit with 11 or more models, each random shot weapon automatically score the maximum number of shots. I.e. a D6 is always a 6.
* This would appear to effect 4D6 weapons as well, so a Wyvern will always have 24 shots against a unit of 20 Ork Boyz.
* Confirmed that certain grenade types also become Blast weapons, such as the humble frag grenade, and it is confirmed that stratagems allowing a whole squad to throw them remain effective - so a Guard squad will get 60 attacks against a unit of 11 or more models.
* Also confirmed that armies that thrive on horde units, i.e. Orks and Tyranids, will still get a lot of love in the new edition - more rules to be revealed soon - this is just one part of 9e.
* The new abilities, pros and cons, will be reflected in the new points changes.
The bit about D3 always scoring a 3 on 6+ model units is interesting due to multiple D3 rolling attacks, such as the Skorpius' Belleros cannon.
If it targets a squad of 6, it fires 9 shots per those words. Thats unusually good. Unless by "each roll" they meant the entire roll and not specifically the die (which would fall back on 4DX actually not benefiting at all against 6-10model units for...some reason)
Vineheart01 wrote: The bit about D3 always scoring a 3 on 6+ model units is interesting due to multiple D3 rolling attacks, such as the Skorpius' Belleros cannon.
If it targets a squad of 6, it fires 9 shots per those words. Thats unusually good. Unless by "each roll" they meant the entire roll and not specifically the die (which would fall back on 4DX actually not benefiting at all against 6-10model units for...some reason)
Yeah I would've figured d3 weapons would've gotten just two guaranteed shots or something but hey max 3 for just 6 models is nice for the skorpius and I guess the neutron laser.
Neutron laser i could see not being considered a blast but as of right now i have no idea what theyre considering a blast and what isnt.
It cant be just random shots because that includes flamers and they very heavily hinted already that vehicles are going to love flamers in combat. But if theyre blast...they cant be used lol
Yeah I expect it's on the total roll, otherwise a weapon with 2d3 is absurdly better than a 1d6 with this wording.
Won't help the Neutronager much, I don't think I've ever shot in a horde with it save for the Stubbers. The Eradication Beam is more interesting though, we'll see how the point costs go.
to be fair, 2D3 shots were already superior to 1D6 anyway.
To the point of i always wished D6 went away and everything was just multiple D3's. Its still random, but its severely less punishing at it.
The amount of times ive rolled 7 on 3D3 vs on 3D6 is ridiculous, the later should be consistently causing more shots yet my luck always made it worse. Theres a joke in my area that if i fire the Skorpius' energy cannon im gonna always get 7-9 shots but when my ork Battlefortress or Stompa fires its 3D6 Deffkannon i always fire less than 7 lol. And its ANNOYINGLY ACCURATE lol.
Vineheart01 wrote: The bit about D3 always scoring a 3 on 6+ model units is interesting due to multiple D3 rolling attacks, such as the Skorpius' Belleros cannon.
If it targets a squad of 6, it fires 9 shots per those words. Thats unusually good. Unless by "each roll" they meant the entire roll and not specifically the die (which would fall back on 4DX actually not benefiting at all against 6-10model units for...some reason)
That's not the posted rule text says. Weirdly, it says you get "at least" 3 shots, whether it's 1d3, 1d6, 2d6, 3d6, 10d4, etc. So it literally has no effect at all on the belleros cannon until you get to 11 models, when it suddenly fires max shots every time.
Note the wording re: 3 attacks, not 3 attacks per dice rolled.
The article and the stream discussion are conflicting. And quite frankly, the stream part makes more sense.
That article blip makes absolutely no sense. Any gun firing more than 2DX of shots gets 0 benefit at 6-10 models for some reason, and then suddenly goes to absolute max shots at 11+ models? Why would that happen?
Either way it works i hope the actual rule written in the book we get is clear. Because that article version is so wordy and badly written it cannot possibly be the final rule.
Minimum of three shots is not 0 benefit for 2dX anything. Snake eyes is a thing. It has little benefit, but not none. Belleros, sure, but 3dX weapons are pretty rare.
*more than 2DX, i.e. its minimum was already 3 because it was rolling 3 or more dice
Rarity of the weapon not a factor, they exist and are common enough to run into fairly often.
None of our tanks weapons benefits from the 6-10 blast bracket.
The Neutronager is pretty much unaffected; A neutron Laser was a small blast in 7th edition and you'd be a bigger fool to shoot it at something with 6+ models unless that was 6+ Centurions lol.
Eradication beamer was large blast, blast or single shot depending on distance. So again the weapons we would WANT to benefit from firing into combat cant actually do it.
Meh HPB on Onager can shoot, but those things need to be virtually free to be worth taking on an Onager over an Icarus array at the same points value.
Icarus array is the big stand out. It's shooting at -1 against ground targets anyway, all it's weapons are and were direct hitting and as modifiers are capped at -1 that engagement to hit penalty makes no difference.
Aside from Balistarii and Kastellan so far our tanks/vehicles have been pretty short-changed by 9ths vehicle/blast rulings.
I'm seriously considering running more balistarii and going custom data hoard + servo-focussed auguries.
It only really benefits Balistarii, the Stratoraptor and all those cognis heavy stubbers we have lingering our Duneriders and Disintigrators. But man does having Cawl's re-roll without cawl seem like a good idea.
Vineheart01 wrote: The article and the stream discussion are conflicting. And quite frankly, the stream part makes more sense.
That article blip makes absolutely no sense. Any gun firing more than 2DX of shots gets 0 benefit at 6-10 models for some reason, and then suddenly goes to absolute max shots at 11+ models? Why would that happen?
Either way it works i hope the actual rule written in the book we get is clear. Because that article version is so wordy and badly written it cannot possibly be the final rule.
But the article has the actual rule text. Unless you think the article is making up random text and presenting it as the rule when it actually isn't?
Literally every other post on warhammer community that puts rules in those tan boxes presents the actual rule's exact wording. Why wouldn't this also be the exact wording of the rule?
Blast weapons always have at least 3 attacks against units with a model size of 6-10.
Blast weapons always have their maximum number of attacks against units with a model size of 11+
The fact that some weapons in their current incarnation don't benefit from that is somewhat irrelevant to the wording of the rule.
The fact that 3D6 benefits the same as 3D3 or that 4D6 or 4D3 don't benefit at all when firing at 6-10 model units but suddenly at 11+ model units becomes some immense clearing tool seems like it works pretty well to me.
It means that against medium-sized units blast weapons are more useful but against units of a sufficiently large size really can be a huge threat to them.
I mean they could always take that 6-10 rule out and stick with just the 11+ one and still achieve the goal of making blast weapons a big threat to large unit sizes.
Something I'm noticing a lot from these rules changes, everything seems to have a significant counter. It's very refreshing for there to be choices that mean something, you cant easily just pick something that's so good it'll never be beat.
EDIT: On the stream they clarified that the rule is each D6 counts as having rolled at least 3. This means a D3 rolls at least 3 which results in 2 shots. So, 2D6 is a minimum of 6, 2D3 is a minimum of 4, etc..
Yeah, I'm in the camp that the written text rightly implies a minimum 3 for the entire attack. It's just more likely that the stream misspoke.
As well, thinking back to earlier editions with blast templates, a 10 man squad with good spacing was rarely hit more than once by a small blast template, and a large blast template hit 3 or 4 models. It's fine that most blast weapons get very little benefit against medium sized squads, because in my mind they always have. The minimum 3 damage is only a 14% increase to average results. It's not nothing, but mostly it just increases consistency.
I think the 10 vs 11 breakpoint is a good one. Almost all non-horde units are already limited to 10 man squads. Anything that can exceed 10 is already incentivized to do so as much as possible. The exact breakpoint will rarely come up and make the disparity noticeable.
I'm interested to see if the Destroyer's Plasma Culverin get Blast, since it's essentially a Plasma Cannon which had a small blast template.
Also, an amusing result of the maximum net +/- 1 roll modifier is that the Icarus Array Dunecrawlers shoot normally while in close combat. They're already -1 BS. I don't think that's a useful strategy, but interesting in a pinch.
Apparently the rules they said for blast weapons are "random number of shots, ranged weapon, non-flamer". It sounds like they're reverse engineering the changes they made when they got rid of blast markers. That makes sense, the random number of shots are just supposed to represent explosions having different potentials for damage based on where they land.
To that end, it looks like both the Eradication Beamer and Neutron Laser will get Blast, while Icarus Array and Heavy Phosphor won't. I think that makes Eradication Beamer strictly better than the Heavy Phosphor, but it doesn't make either weapon relevant. The Icarus Array still has better performance against all targets than either.
It turns out we actually don't have many Blast weapons. Just the two guns on the Dunecrawler, the Plasma on the Destroyers, and the Disintegrators. That being said, the Disintegrators come out huge, with both the Disruptor Launcher and Belleros Cannon being Blast weapons. The Disintegrator has to take an extreme price hike, because it's going to be the premier anti-everything. It's got overwhelming anti-infantry firepower against all profiles, and with the Mars Canticle it has the best anti-tank per point in Heavy Support.
DarkHound wrote: EDIT: On the stream they clarified that the rule is each D6 counts as having rolled at least 3. This means a D3 rolls at least 3 which results in 2 shots. So, 2D6 is a minimum of 6, 2D3 is a minimum of 4, etc..
No, they didn't. They stated one thing on the stream, without quoting the specific rule text, then posted something that contradicts it as the actual rule on the site. They definitely did not say on the stream "guys, what's on the site is wrong, sorry, here's how it really works..."
Now it's possible the actual rule they posted on the site is inaccurate, and the non-official summary they stated on the stream is correct. But I don't see why anyone would assume that, rather than the opposite. Why would they post something as the official rule that isn't the official rule? Surely the text is more likely to be right than what some guy said off the cuff on a stream?
When I wrote my original comment, I hadn't yet seen the stream. On the stream they said "if you roll a D6, you can never get less than a 3" (at 6:55 in the broadcast). When they mention a Volcano cannon always getting 9 shots, they're referring to a "big-ish unit" which sounds like he means 11 or more. Stu Black clarifies again at 21:50 "if the unit is 6 more, you always count has having rolled a 3, or better of course if you've rolled better. So 1s and 2s count as 3s. 11 or more you get the maximum number of attacks. It is attacks, it's not hits, you still have to roll to hit. It's not that good!"
Honestly, I'm inclined to believe the post on the community page isn't the rule verbatim. Stu Black definitely did not misspeak. That post lines up with the stream when talking about 1D6 weapons, but that rule is just wonky if it applies RAW to any other variation. The rule "each D6 rolls a minimum of 3" fixes every variation, so I'm inclined to think that's what they actually meant.
DarkHound wrote: When I wrote my original comment, I hadn't yet seen the stream. On the stream they said "if you roll a D6, you can never get less than a 3" (at 6:55 in the broadcast). When they mention a Volcano cannon always getting 9 shots, they're referring to a "big-ish unit" which sounds like he means 11 or more. Stu Black clarifies again at 21:50 "if the unit is 6 more, you always count has having rolled a 3, or better of course if you've rolled better. So 1s and 2s count as 3s. 11 or more you get the maximum number of attacks. It is attacks, it's not hits, you still have to roll to hit. It's not that good!"
Honestly, I'm inclined to believe the post on the community page isn't the rule verbatim. Stu Black definitely did not misspeak. That post lines up with the stream when talking about 1D6 weapons, but that rule is just wonky if it applies RAW to any other variation. The rule "each D6 rolls a minimum of 3" fixes every variation, so I'm inclined to think that's what they actually meant.
That does make that new Thin Their Ranks strategm redundant though. Unless Helverin Autocannons arent Blast. Helverins fire 4D3, that strategy gives them all 12 of their shots on units 6+ which they would get anyway if they were Blast.
DarkHound wrote: When I wrote my original comment, I hadn't yet seen the stream. On the stream they said "if you roll a D6, you can never get less than a 3" (at 6:55 in the broadcast). When they mention a Volcano cannon always getting 9 shots, they're referring to a "big-ish unit" which sounds like he means 11 or more. Stu Black clarifies again at 21:50 "if the unit is 6 more, you always count has having rolled a 3, or better of course if you've rolled better. So 1s and 2s count as 3s. 11 or more you get the maximum number of attacks. It is attacks, it's not hits, you still have to roll to hit. It's not that good!"
Honestly, I'm inclined to believe the post on the community page isn't the rule verbatim. Stu Black definitely did not misspeak. That post lines up with the stream when talking about 1D6 weapons, but that rule is just wonky if it applies RAW to any other variation. The rule "each D6 rolls a minimum of 3" fixes every variation, so I'm inclined to think that's what they actually meant.
That does make that new Thin Their Ranks strategm redundant though. Unless Helverin Autocannons arent Blast. Helverins fire 4D3, that strategy gives them all 12 of their shots on units 6+ which they would get anyway if they were Blast.
It still works a treat on vehicles though (or just stuff like small units of aggressors)
"Nonflamer" hopefully is looking at autohits because theres some XDX weapons that autohit that arent technically a flamer but would be disgusting with this blast rule
So with those cover rules that just dropped today, having the new Engine War strat for 1CP for a Skorpius to ignore cover (if firing all weapons at the same target), combine with the blast rules...
The Forgemaster wrote: So with those cover rules that just dropped today, having the new Engine War strat for 1CP for a Skorpius to ignore cover (if firing all weapons at the same target), combine with the blast rules...
Also Shroudpsalm & the new cover rules...?
Yeah shroudpsalm will need to have say which version of cover benefit its providing since some cover can just block line of sight for stuff like a knight but not a infantry model shooting at a knight.
The only part I find weird is that models that are on or within an obscuring terrain feature can be seen and targeted normally. But I guess it makes sense because they can shoot back.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So with the new terrain rules, i think we can all agree that building the archaopter with no flying stand isnt modeling for advantage!
Well, it still gives you an advantage for any terrain that isn't marked with the obscuring trait. But yes, it seems to take away most of the issue with it.
Instead, now you will get to enjoy having your flyer always able to be shot at through obscuring terrain, while it is not allowed to shoot back.
Non-reciprocal LOS, here we come! This definitely won't turn out to be a disaster...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Suzuteo wrote: The only part I find weird is that models that are on or within an obscuring terrain feature can be seen and targeted normally. But I guess it makes sense because they can shoot back.
This is a massive change from ITC, and a huge nerf for melee infantry and a huge buff for shooting vis a vis the current ITC rule. No more hanging out in a ruin and threatening the middle of the board while being out of LOS; now you gotta be fully behind the ruin, so your threat range is greatly reduced.
Unless everyone just ignores the "inside" bit by saying that the dimensions of a ruin don't include any space inside the ruin. I.e. that L-shape ruin is really just an L-shaped wall, and if you're within the L but not on top of it, you're not "inside" it but "behind" it.
Suzuteo wrote: The only part I find weird is that models that are on or within an obscuring terrain feature can be seen and targeted normally. But I guess it makes sense because they can shoot back.
This is a massive change from ITC, and a huge nerf for melee infantry and a huge buff for shooting vis a vis the current ITC rule. No more hanging out in a ruin and threatening the middle of the board while being out of LOS; now you gotta be fully behind the ruin, so your threat range is greatly reduced.
Unless everyone just ignores the "inside" bit by saying that the dimensions of a ruin don't include any space inside the ruin. I.e. that L-shape ruin is really just an L-shaped wall, and if you're within the L but not on top of it, you're not "inside" it but "behind" it.
My guess is that this refers to scalable ruins? As in, if one of your models can climb onto the ruin, you can see them, and they can see you. If you want to stay obscured, just stay off the terrain feature itself.
Also solves the magic box problem, since you can shoot out of the windows, and they can shoot in.
That would make more sense, but it doesn't seem to be what they said. They didn't say if you're "on" the terrain, they said if you're "inside" the terrain.
So the rule seems to be that you step into a ruin, and you can be shot. You step out of the ruin, you can't be shot any more (assuming it has obscuring). Which is pretty much the definition of silly.
They say "on or within." I am going to assume that means you have scaled the terrain or are physically touching the terrain in some way, you can shoot through the windows, and they can shoot into them as well.
This is a buff for melee on a right board with a lot of terrain a huge portion of the board can be obscured from backfield units. through multiple obscuring terrains. being in terrain may offer better protection e.g. heavy cover your just using the area behind the ruin not in the ruin. Just bring a battle sanctum with you you can obscure half your deployment zone.
Using the area behind the ruin, not the ruin, means giving up significant threat range; it also means giving up your maneuverability advantage to some extent, because the other good thing about ruins is that as infantry you can move through them, but other stuff can't. It's a big nerf compared to the current ITC rules for melee infantry, if it turns out to really work like it sounds, not like Suzuteo is theorizing. If it didn't make any difference, people would already use the areas behind ruins, but they don't. They use the ruin, because it gets them precious inches.
I do suspect that either way ITC will rule that those big L-shaped things don't have any footprint, so standing on the far side of the wall is not "within" the L but "behind" it. Which will cure most of the issues.
yukishiro1 wrote: Using the area behind the ruin, not the ruin, means giving up significant threat range; it also means giving up your maneuverability advantage to some extent, because the other good thing about ruins is that as infantry you can move through them, but other stuff can't. It's a big nerf compared to the current ITC rules for melee infantry, if it turns out to really work like it sounds, not like Suzuteo is theorizing. If it didn't make any difference, people would already use the areas behind ruins, but they don't. They use the ruin, because it gets them precious inches.
I do suspect that either way ITC will rule that those big L-shaped things don't have any footprint, so standing on the far side of the wall is not "within" the L but "behind" it. Which will cure most of the issues.
I sure hope that is the case because otherwise like you said that’s anywhere from 6-10 precious inches in movement that are going to be lost while trying to get in position and set up a charge. That’s pretty crippling for most units you want to charge with.
It would make the game essentially unplayable for melee infantry if they didn't. That ground floor blocking LOS rule ITC has is absolutely essential to making melee infantry a viable choice in competitive games. Without it, we'd go back to deep-strike or transports being the only way to deliver melee infantry.
yukishiro1 wrote: Using the area behind the ruin, not the ruin, means giving up significant threat range; it also means giving up your maneuverability advantage to some extent, because the other good thing about ruins is that as infantry you can move through them, but other stuff can't. It's a big nerf compared to the current ITC rules for melee infantry, if it turns out to really work like it sounds, not like Suzuteo is theorizing. If it didn't make any difference, people would already use the areas behind ruins, but they don't. They use the ruin, because it gets them precious inches.
I do suspect that either way ITC will rule that those big L-shaped things don't have any footprint, so standing on the far side of the wall is not "within" the L but "behind" it. Which will cure most of the issues.
One of the issues before is that upper floors didnt block LOS. So the reality on many tables was you were up against the L wall and couldn't be seen or you were just behind it and could be seen by any model on a hill. As you could be seen by a top floor window.
Meanwhile L without windows havn't changed they still block LoS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It would make the game essentially unplayable for melee infantry if they didn't. That ground floor blocking LOS rule ITC has is absolutely essential to making melee infantry a viable choice in competitive games. Without it, we'd go back to deep-strike or transports being the only way to deliver melee infantry.
Which are more viable than they were given EW has given a lot more options for us to to boost these options.
While blocking infantry like hoplites or screening vanguard can still benefit from cover and hard cover may be a solid benefit to vanguard
Hesselhof wrote: Can i use the new disintegrator stratagem for +1 to hit, if i only shoot with the belleros canon because the stuber are out of LOS?
As long as everything targets the same thing I don't see why not. But you won't be able to target something else with the stubbers and missiles and still retain the bonus on the Belleros. Arguable the Belleros is positioned to be extremely effective at clearing chaff from cover as it'll likely get the blast rule as well.
Disintigrators have the Skitarii keyword though so you can use the doctrina strat for +1 to hit with all weapons anyway
Does anyone know or have any suggestions for aftermarket Belleros kits or alternatives that could fit? I built all my Disintegrators with Ferrumite but with the recent terrain reveal, the Belleros might be more useful.
shamroll wrote: Does anyone know or have any suggestions for aftermarket Belleros kits or alternatives that could fit? I built all my Disintegrators with Ferrumite but with the recent terrain reveal, the Belleros might be more useful.
Just slice it off and magnetized both of them lol.
Also, anyone notice the Archeopter NOT included in the list Flyers that get the Aircraft keyword in today's preview? Wtf is going on there?!
Skorpius' turret fits in there without any glue or magnets. The friction from the paint alone keeps the gun barrel on the turret for me. But if you already glued it you could find someone with a 3D printer and print this: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4115163 i havnt printed it myself but it looks fine. Missing the actual gun parts of course but that part is usually much easier to kitbash than the turret itself, especially when it has a dude in it normally
shamroll wrote: Does anyone know or have any suggestions for aftermarket Belleros kits or alternatives that could fit? I built all my Disintegrators with Ferrumite but with the recent terrain reveal, the Belleros might be more useful.
Did you glue the Ferrumite Cannons into place? Planning on running any Duneriders?
Because the Dunerider doesn't use any of the Disintegrator's cannon parts.
New terrain rules arriving at just the right time for the Pteraxii, having finally gotten the kit in my hands and it's easy to say that hiding even just 5 of them in 8th edition would have been difficult. The wingspan on these guys is massive, fully 5" across from tip to tip.
Yeah, i just assembled a full squad of skystalkers and holy crap the wingspan.
I actually cannot put them base-to-base. That alone is making me wonder if i should be doing 2x5 instead of 1x10 squads.
Vineheart01 wrote: Yeah, i just assembled a full squad of skystalkers and holy crap the wingspan.
I actually cannot put them base-to-base. That alone is making me wonder if i should be doing 2x5 instead of 1x10 squads.
Been having the same thought, which is a shame as that's 2 missing phosphor torches/flechette rifles instead of 1, but wrangling a unit of 10 just seems unfeasibly difficult without just throwing caution to the wind and stringing them out all the time, regardless of terrain.
Vineheart01 wrote: Yeah, i just assembled a full squad of skystalkers and holy crap the wingspan.
I actually cannot put them base-to-base. That alone is making me wonder if i should be doing 2x5 instead of 1x10 squads.
Been having the same thought, which is a shame as that's 2 missing phosphor torches/flechette rifles instead of 1, but wrangling a unit of 10 just seems unfeasibly difficult without just throwing caution to the wind and stringing them out all the time, regardless of terrain.
It is entertaining that some people were saying they could easily hide 10
Given fusilave, steryliser and rangers theres a lot of weaknesses built into the list - you will struggle vs any tank/SH list as you lack any real anti tank other than your one unit of breachers
Hesselhof wrote: So what would you change? Belleros to ferumite?
No you want some non los shooting
If it were me and i was building this style of list
I would swap the 5x breachers for 2x 3 breacher letting you drop a ranger unit entirely
Swap the rest of the rangers for vanguard you dont really have enough for consistant character sniping and vanguard are more flexible
Ditch the flyers fusilavs are fun the problem is while strong vs custodes or sm in big blops they do almost nothing vs cheap infantry or vehicles think that guard list, knight or even your own. 20pts of damage to guard or 1.5 mw to a knight doesnt really cut it
for antitank either dakkabots useing WoM strat, neutronagers or strato raptors (if you want flyers)
While im personally not a fan balistarii could take the place of one of the pteraxii squads as another alternative
Its damage output vs its cost is so low and theres going to be games where it does very little.
So best case its doing 5MW to a large squad 10+ (many list dont have them and with 9th changes increaseingly unlikely.)
So your really looking at 1.5 w to a vehicle or 2.5 to a 5 man squad. So imagine i fly over that unit of 6 aggressors - i kill half an aggressor then die what about a knight 1.5 then die. Guard 5 infantry then die. In shooting terms how many of those would you have to kill to make your pts back. I say then die, because chances are your out in the open near their army. Now maybe with the strat to remove auras a single flyer could work but the trade off is you lose your defence.
By comparison a stratoraptor doesn't have to go near the enemy, has a higher damage output vs most lists and even if you want you want to fly at the enemy can move block more easily as unlike the fusilav you don't have to fly over the enemy
Irs not that i think its terrible its just inefficient
i think theyre all inefficient.
Ignoring the real life $$$ to get one being alarmingly close to its in-game cost, the gunboat variant hits on 4s unless it sacrifices Hard to Hit and has less dakka than ironstriders, the transport does nothing with its limit at 6, and like you said the bomb wont really do that much either.
The only bombing run in the game i actually feel is a threat is the Skystalker variant, because its dice is based on the user not the target, so its not screwed by the 3-5man squads everywhere problem
Vineheart01 wrote: i think theyre all inefficient.
Ignoring the real life $$$ to get one being alarmingly close to its in-game cost, the gunboat variant hits on 4s unless it sacrifices Hard to Hit and has less dakka than ironstriders, the transport does nothing with its limit at 6, and like you said the bomb wont really do that much either.
The only bombing run in the game i actually feel is a threat is the Skystalker variant, because its dice is based on the user not the target, so its not screwed by the 3-5man squads everywhere problem
Shame we're not already in 9th isn't it. That Stratoraptor is likely to be just over 130pts after the zero cost HPB is accounted for (that's how Battlescribe has interpreted it as well) and apart from the obvious benefit of Ironstriders being squadable for strategm benefits is a pretty OK-ish flyer.
I agree on the Fusilave though, if you were including a bombing unit 5 Skystalkers although less tough have the same amount of wounds and a much better bombing ability for fewer points. Though moving over stuff is much more difficult with them. but at least if you can get them to do something they actual DO something. The Fusilave just seems a bit anaemic in its delivery, even if it is technically safer.
Transvector I can only assume these flyers were conceived by a marine designer where 5 models are worth it. Otherwise, I can't believe for a second they even glanced at our army list and thought "Yeah 5 of those dropping in would be tactically viable" lol
Skorpius Disintegrator [6 PL, 111pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon, 3x Cognis Heavy Stubber
Skorpius Disintegrator [6 PL, 111pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon, 3x Cognis Heavy Stubber
Skorpius Disintegrator [6 PL, 111pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon, 3x Cognis Heavy Stubber
++ Total: [90 PL, 9CP, 1,489pts] ++
Is it playable ?
I think the list is perfectly fine against Deathguard, I would merge the 2 units of 5 into 1 unit of 10 Sterylizors and use them as a single drop squad to clear an area and take it, the extra phosphor torch will help. I actually really rate the Fusilave if im honest, I think its the best of the Archeopters. It adds quite a lot of anti infantry with its 4 (str5 with Mars) heavy stubbers that will only benefit more in 9th when it ignores heavy and its bombs cant be underrated. Taking out models that are either extremely hard to kill with negatives to hit or good invuns is crucial, which even though DG get a 5+++ itll bypass the higher toughness of the unit that makes str 4 weapons pretty ineffective. Having the other option instead of the chaff launcher means you can then get it in a prime location to shut off any defensive auras like the new 5++ invun aura from the noxious blightbringer.
You could want more AT in the list but the basis is fine, Id drop a Fusilave and a squad of Rangers for like and Onager with a Neutron laser or get a chunkier front line of breachers
U02dah4 wrote: Problem is those points could change in ninth
I akways assumed the transvectors capacity was a mistake to be faq'd
It does seem a bit ridiculous. Increase a 6 to a 10 and all of a sudden that's an indispensable unit.
Although that new Dunerider strategem makes it virtually the best transport in the entire game.
a transport that cant transport what it needs to is not really a transport it is worthless at 10 its not mandatory by a long shot but atvleast it can serve its purpose and actually transport secutarii
that's what I talked about before. That combo offers something new that no other unit can easily provide (pray for no 
if suddenly there is a day 1 errata that bumps up the prices of all vehicles, suddenly everyones lists are gonna take a huge hit.
for me 8th is over, I'm no longer looking at the new releases and our army with 8th in mind.
did this pass through the net!
