Red Corsair wrote: I hate mortal wound mechanics because they create strange situations impossible under normal condition. 30 grots charging a custodes unit won't do any meaningful damage until the custodes fall back to grab an objective, then they take wounds without the possibility of saves with all that expensive gear.
This is exactly why I wish Gw woukd stop seeing handing out mortal wounds like candy as the answer.
If you want a faster game how about ditching reroll your reroll of a reroll aura's and doubel shooting russes they take way more time to resolve.
Yep, and rolling another 30 dice fishing for 6's is just adding more time to the game as well.
Red Corsair wrote: I hate mortal wound mechanics because they create strange situations impossible under normal condition. 30 grots charging a custodes unit won't do any meaningful damage until the custodes fall back to grab an objective, then they take wounds without the possibility of saves with all that expensive gear.
This is exactly why I wish Gw woukd stop seeing handing out mortal wounds like candy as the answer.
If you want a faster game how about ditching reroll your reroll of a reroll aura's and doubel shooting russes they take way more time to resolve.
Yep. And for some reason, the "shortcut" to mortal wounds is always in those situations where the player has made an actual decision and spent a limited resource or taken a risk (Casting a psychic power, using a stratagem, or making use of a conditional special rule) and the situations where you have to roll and reroll a mountain of dice is when you're taking the path of least resistance and getting stuff automatically for free (standing still in a character aura, making overwatch attacks).
Why do psychic powers that work like modified shooting attacks take too long to resolve without making ALL of them mortal wound based, but stopping the game in the middle of the charge phase to roll hits, wounds, saves, and remove models for each. and. every. unit. that. gets. charged. does not?
And hey, fair's fair here:
I will take back every single bad thing I've said about this stratagem if Overwatch in 9th is replaced with a stratagem that allows you, for 1cp, to roll a D6 for each model in the unit being charged and on a 6 you deal a mortal wound. Absolutely, 100 billion percent OK with Cut Them Down if that's the case.
we must be missing something with this strat because its a low even for GW. It's just rolling dice porn at this point isnt it? Like the illusion of stuff happening by dice rolls when its all pretty much filler
I mean i thought of this off the top of my head:
Tie them down: 2cp - The target unit cannot fallback in their next movement phase.
- pricey, but effective
- easy to remember
- does not involve you re-counting all the models in your unit then rolling all those dice and picking out 6's
- compliments new vehicle rules as they can shoot in combat anyway so keeps that new rule working
Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.
Not going to lie here, but I genuinely hate the "Cut them Down" stratagem from a Design perspective. Mostly because it's just another Mortal Wounds mechanic, which I have never found to be remotely interesting since their introduction into 40k 3 years ago. It's also yet another "fish for 6's" mechanic, one which is becoming too common for my tastes.
Smellingsalts wrote: Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.
It's not just about the raw mathematics and averages.
It's just a bad design. I mean why is it far scarier to run from a unit of 30 gretchin than a unit of 5 Khorne Terminators? or a Bloodthirster?
It makes zero sense form a fluff perspective and it makes zero sense to the math hammer guys either.
I run Orks myself, often triple battalion and I run out of CP every game by turn 2. And this is supposed to help me?
I can only see me using this in extreme corner cases.
Smellingsalts wrote: Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.
You can also be UNLUCKY and not get a single one from 18 Boyz too!
Latro_ wrote: we must be missing something with this strat because its a low even for GW. It's just rolling dice porn at this point isnt it? Like the illusion of stuff happening by dice rolls when its all pretty much filler
I mean i thought of this off the top of my head:
Tie them down: 2cp - The target unit cannot fallback in their next movement phase.
- pricey, but effective
- easy to remember
- does not involve you re-counting all the models in your unit then rolling all those dice and picking out 6's
- compliments new vehicle rules as they can shoot in combat anyway so keeps that new rule working
Funny I'm sure I have seen that strategums oh yeah it's on the new Admech batboys.
So its not like GW haven't though of the idea dn still decided nah fish for MW was better for the game?
Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.
Smellingsalts wrote: Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.
I predict not many. Melee's issue isn't really doing damage-it's hitting what matters.
Anyone complaining about the game getting longer and longer, remember that 9th games are going to be smaller because all points are going up. It may not be a huge difference - or it might. They might have wanted to make smaller games to fit into a competitive time frame with what appears to be a new push towards competitive uniformity, or they might have made smaller games to make price increases not hurt so much. Either way, pushing around less models is going to take less time, which gives you time for all of your rerolls and strategems.
That said, we obviously don't know what other things have changed in 9th, so there may be some mechanics that are being complained about that are changing altogether.
Smellingsalts wrote: Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.
Seriously, if you are running from 30 gretchin (how did you not kill any?), I still wouldn't use the stratagem - the average of 1 MW per 6 models is misleading, you might not get any out of it.
Smellingsalts wrote: Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.
I predict not many. Melee's issue isn't really doing damage-it's hitting what matters.
Yeah. The reason Fall Back actually hurts is because a unit charges in, doesn't kill something, and then that unit falls back and your melee unit is left standing in the middle of the open, at super short range, with their dicks in their hands doing nothing while the enemy blasts them to pieces.
it has nothing to do with the melee unit not getting to kill the falling back unit. And it also has nothing to do with a player wanting to play a "100% melee army" which is the chestnut people always trot out. fall back screws you over just as much if you bring a melee-light marine army with some terminators or assault marines as it does if you bring a whole horde.
8th ed melee is high cost, high risk, low reward. a lucky shot from a lascannon can deal 6 damage in one go. The best standard melee weapon in the game is flat 3 damage. Melee requires you to be closer to the enemy, out of cover, you have to tank overwatch shots, and you have to make a 2D6 roll to be allowed to do anything at all. There's no 2d6 "range check" to make sure your guns are in range or to see if you spot the enemy you're trying to target.
The only melee units that have been good in 8th have
1) Been able to basically guarantee the charge using strats or abilities
2) been able to ignore the hurdle of having to cross the board via turn 1/turn 2 out of deep strike charges
3) been able to spend a huge pile of CPs to deal a ridiculous amount of damage in a crazy combo
And if they can't do 1 of those 3, they've been total crap. People advocating for melee to be improved don't have to be hoping to run a pure Khorne Daemons army without a single gun, they want to be able to bring a 5-man assault squad in their ultramarines army or a unit of Howling Banshees in their Eldar army without there being a 0.1% chance of that not just being a complete waste of 60 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote: Anyone complaining about the game getting longer and longer, remember that 9th games are going to be smaller because all points are going up. It may not be a huge difference - or it might. They might have wanted to make smaller games to fit into a competitive time frame with what appears to be a new push towards competitive uniformity, or they might have made smaller games to make price increases not hurt so much. Either way, pushing around less models is going to take less time, which gives you time for all of your rerolls and strategems.
That said, we obviously don't know what other things have changed in 9th, so there may be some mechanics that are being complained about that are changing altogether.
tbh I'd much rather the game go longer than it currently does. I'd be A-OK with never having another 1 hour 2,000pt game.
I mean, I have often spent command points to get that final 2-3 wounds off a target so I don’t see how this is significantly different.
It is an opportunity for mortal wounds that is situationally relevant. Will it apply all of the time? Nope, but I can easily see a lot of situations where it will make or break a game. Could also see a lot of situations where the risk would prevent someone from falling back.
Consolidate into a character with 2 wounds left, I would burn a CP with 10 guys to try for the kill.
I mean, assuming 30 dudes, it averages 5 mortal wounds for 1CP, that is the highest cp to return ratio I can think of. It really depends on how engagement ranges work but I could also see bigger models havin multiple units worth of models in range as well.
Again, not broken good, but situationally useful like most generic CP abilities are.
Well, one example I can think of is this, it's the last turn of the game, and your opponent's unit can fall back and claim an objective. Cut them down might stop that from happening.
I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...
At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..
Leth wrote: I mean, I have often spent command points to get that final 2-3 wounds off a target so I don’t see how this is significantly different.
It is an opportunity for mortal wounds that is situationally relevant. Will it apply all of the time? Nope, but I can easily see a lot of situations where it will make or break a game. Could also see a lot of situations where the risk would prevent someone from falling back.
Consolidate into a character with 2 wounds left, I would burn a CP with 10 guys to try for the kill.
I mean, assuming 30 dudes, it averages 5 mortal wounds for 1CP, that is the highest cp to return ratio I can think of. It really depends on how engagement ranges work but I could also see bigger models havin multiple units worth of models in range as well.
Again, not broken good, but situationally useful like most generic CP abilities are.
My personal opinion on this stratagem is that it could be usefull to try and kill a wounded character or something like that and little else. Still, it’s something, like fire in my position i probably will never use it until the day i look at the board and start cackling.
gungo wrote: I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...
At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..
It is more for a lot of armies, less for others. It's more or less meeting in the middle.
I sincerely hope this was the weak end of changes they gave melee. Like maybe falling back has changed in some way that changes how it works so it's no longer so effortless or something.
Well GW has gotten one thing right: the more they show the leas I feel like I know about the new edition leading me waking up eatly to watch streams everyday so far.
I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.
The strat is incredibly stupid, on many different levels. It's stupid on the very basic level of value for CP - you would need 12+ models in range statistically to make it break even for the average cost of a CP to do 1d3 mortal wounds strat. It's stupid on the second level, because it means that falling back from a grot is as dangerous as falling back from a bloodthirster. And it's also stupid on the third level, because it doesn't actually address any of the problems with units being able to fall back from combat. Putting a few more mortal wounds on a unit as it falls back doesn't change the equation at all. I cannot think of virtually any situation where the existence of this strat would cause anyone to play any differently at all.
It shows the people responsible for it have no idea what the issue with falling back from melee units is. None at all.
It's a depressing sign that the people coming up with the rules for 9th thought this was something positive to tease to the community, instead of an embarrassment to be buried.
This piece-meal approach to rules reveals is a disaster for customer confidence. Either the format isn't working and the rules are better when viewed as a whole, or the rules really are as bad as the reveals are making them seem, and we have a massive problem on our hands.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
All those lists are going to change and many of those lists might now eschew the troop tax and get other things instead. The game is changing and it is a bit weird to expect you will be playing the same game when 9th comes out considering all the vehicle and terrain changes as well as the CP cost of allies.
gungo wrote: I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...
At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..
It is more for a lot of armies, less for others. It's more or less meeting in the middle.
Even if I go straight to 1 detachment I’m still behind on what I had before. I’m still behind the amount when I used 2x bats and a 1cp detachment as a MONO ork player.. this along with whatever anti horde rules makes the army building part of this edition worse.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.
Eh. I can see it both ways. Part of me likes seeing the less specialized, less deadly, less skewy units getting tabletime. It's one of the things I liked about 8th in contrast with 7th - I no longer had to see "all dreadnoughts, all tanks, all riptides, all hive tyrants, all knights, all XYZ" every game. in 7th they had to give you pretty whackadoodle buffs just to get necron players to field 3 units of warriors or marine players 3 units of tacticals, 1 unit of assualt marines, and 1 unit of devs, and before that every army for the whole edition had been like, a big ball of centurions+HQs.
Hopefully there's some mysterious reason troops are still good, but my suspicion is that the reason they're being all winky-coy about it is the same reason they were about melee units in 8th: There's nothing there. They're changing away from a troop-heavy meta on purpose, and I like troops.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.
If the good stuff in your army was tanks and elites yes...
If the good stuff was everything (HQ, troops) else NO
It’s not just less upfront it’s less for any triple or double bat plus lists.
Realistically the only cp regeneration that’s going to matter is the first 3 turns. And the third turn is down to your last 1-2 cp anyway.
As I said before I’m down with tournaments going back to 2000+1 lists.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
All those lists are going to change and many of those lists might now eschew the troop tax and get other things instead. The game is changing and it is a bit weird to expect you will be playing the same game when 9th comes out considering all the vehicle and terrain changes as well as the CP cost of allies.
Yep. Boy howdy do I hope we don't go back to how lists looked in 7th. Big ball of do-it-all hyper elite badass boys that you couldn't touch got real dull real fast. It's also just not how I like to build lists. I'm an MSU horde kind of boy - I like little, varied infantry units with interesting equipment way more than I like fielding 3 big monsters and 1 tax HQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smellingsalts wrote: I'm ok with the strategy. Like I said, it's situational. You may never need it, but you might.
I think I'd be more fine with it if it wasn't being presented as a solution to the problems that come with Fall Back. It'd be fine as like, some weird thing that Drukhari get as a strat for Wracks or Slaanesh for Daemonettes in psychic awakening. You'd look at it and go "eh, ok, might use that every once in a while, prob not tho."
About the total power level including both armies: There are lots of open and narrative scenarios in 8th where one side has more forces than the other. Totaling them together can make sense when it's not always two equal armies facing each other.
So a narrative scenario can say Strike Force and be 200PL but it might say that one side gets 75PL and the other gets 125PL but has harder victory conditions.
Anyone looking for a fun game should play the unequal army size scenarios in the Open Play section of the 8th edition rulebook. They are great fun.
If I flee a unit of 30 Gretchin or Termagants I take potentially 5 Mortal wounds, If I flee a unit of 6 Assault Centurions I take 1 mortal wound?
Who is signing off on this terrible design?
And in what world do you ever get 30 Ork boyz intact into an enemy and all in engaged anyway??
This has been extensively play tested by people who know the game and this is the end result?
I'm not pooping on the whole edition as i like a lot of what I'm hearing but how do things like this still slip through?
playing devil's advocate here, back before 8th edition (and withdraw rules) one of the big uses of the large cheap melee hoard units wasn't nesscarily to kill but to tarpit. to hold a much more dangerous foe in melee for a few turns while you choke it with bodies. it could be GW is making this rule work like this to make that stragety viable again. so if your small but powerful unit is in combat agaisnt a swarm of guys he can't kill fast, you have to balance risking those mortal wounds agaisnt withdrawing and doing what you want it to do.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.
Eh. I can see it both ways. Part of me likes seeing the less specialized, less deadly, less skewy units getting tabletime. It's one of the things I liked about 8th in contrast with 7th - I no longer had to see "all dreadnoughts, all tanks, all riptides, all hive tyrants, all knights, all XYZ" every game. in 7th they had to give you pretty whackadoodle buffs just to get necron players to field 3 units of warriors or marine players 3 units of tacticals, 1 unit of assualt marines, and 1 unit of devs, and before that every army for the whole edition had been like, a big ball of centurions+HQs.
Hopefully there's some mysterious reason troops are still good, but my suspicion is that the reason they're being all winky-coy about it is the same reason they were about melee units in 8th: There's nothing there. They're changing away from a troop-heavy meta on purpose, and I like troops.
Except I you only get the cost of the detachment refunded if it is a Patrok, Battalion or Brigade, which means forgoing troops already has a downside of however many CP the detachment you have chosen costs.
Troops Tax is still very much a thing just less of one then before.
If I flee a unit of 30 Gretchin or Termagants I take potentially 5 Mortal wounds, If I flee a unit of 6 Assault Centurions I take 1 mortal wound?
Who is signing off on this terrible design?
And in what world do you ever get 30 Ork boyz intact into an enemy and all in engaged anyway??
This has been extensively play tested by people who know the game and this is the end result?
I'm not pooping on the whole edition as i like a lot of what I'm hearing but how do things like this still slip through?
playing devil's advocate here, back before 8th edition (and withdraw rules) one of the big uses of the large cheap melee hoard units wasn't nesscarily to kill but to tarpit. to hold a much more dangerous foe in melee for a few turns while you choke it with bodies. it could be GW is making this rule work like this to make that stragety viable again. so if your small but powerful unit is in combat agaisnt a swarm of guys he can't kill fast, you have to balance risking those mortal wounds agaisnt withdrawing and doing what you want it to do.
At best let’s say I’m using 30 Gretchin and trying to tie up your Newly improved lord of change So it can’t go around sucking up my psychic powers... we already know they can shoot into (and out?) combat now. At best I’m probably only getting what 18? Models within 1in of the LoC if I am able to completely encircle the base. That’s 3 mortal wounds on average. Which is the ideal situation. Which I admit isn’t bad but for most armies this isn’t going to happen.
Being tarpitted isn’t as bad as it use to be now that you can shoot into (and maybe out of) combat.
gungo wrote: I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...
At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..
You may be at 18 CP already (trip bat is 18, not 15 mate), some of us are at 13, because we made an extra battalion for no reason except CP generation, and would have done a single battalion otherwise.
And if a turny wants to shove more command points to the game, there is no reason for 2000+1 stupidity, they can just say "everyone gets X more CP, because reasons"
As if turny bigheads outright changing the rules of the game wasn't a thing in the past.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.
If , IF, you have good Stuff not relying on and stratagems and vast hq support.
gungo wrote: I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...
At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..
You may be at 15 CP already, some of us are at 13, because we made an extra battalion for no reason except CP generation, and would have done a single battalion otherwise.
And if a turny wants to shove more command points to the game, there is no reason for 2000+1 stupidity, they can just say "everyone gets X more CP, because reasons"
As if turny bigheads outright changing the rules of the game wasn't a thing in the past.
But the 2000+1 “stupidity” is exactly what they did before As it is within the rules. Regarding the last time GW created hamfisted FOC building issues.
You keep acting like tanks and elites are every armies best units... for some armies HQs and troops were thier best units.
gungo wrote: I’m thinking 12 command points with 1 per turn realistically first 4 are all that matters.. is way to low for command points since they are adding more strategems, adding command points consuming abilities, and taking away command points if I want 2 detachments regardless of soup or not. I’m already at 15 command points on my current triple bat list and it’s not enough...
At best I hope tournaments go back to the old 6th ed 2000+1 tourney list.. allowing us to start with 18 command points. This is less not more command points..
You may be at 15 CP already, some of us are at 13, because we made an extra battalion for no reason except CP generation, and would have done a single battalion otherwise.
And if a turny wants to shove more command points to the game, there is no reason for 2000+1 stupidity, they can just say "everyone gets X more CP, because reasons"
As if turny bigheads outright changing the rules of the game wasn't a thing in the past.
But the 2000+1 “stupidity” is exactly what they did before As it is within the rules. Regarding the last time GW created hamfisted FOC building issues.
You keep acting like tanks and elites are every armies best units... for some armies HQs and troops were thier best units.
One of my armies is TS, basically everything except HQs is bad, so I know full well how it works.
And depending on the CP cost of supcom, I might still end up with more CPs than I used to have with a battalion+supcom at 2000 (it used to be 9 CP. meaning if its 3 CP, I start at the same point, and get a few more over the game.)
For many armies, the CP total is pretty much unchanged, or improved.
For the armies that could spam battalions like crap, there is a decrease.
GW doesn't want us spamming strats, they want the use of strats to be a deliberate CHOICE. make CPs easy to come by and it's not a choice it's a no brainer.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
I feel like it's a good balance. Less CP up front but you can take more of the good stuff in your army.
If , IF, you have good Stuff not relying on and stratagems and vast hq support.
Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24
Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24
Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
Wouldn't the cost of the battalion negate that? Assuming you're adding them to another force.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24
Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
Wouldn't the cost of the battalion negate that? Assuming you're adding them to another force.
For me as a red corsairs player it's all profit, but yeah you'd just get a free battalion in essence otherwise.
You get 18CP over the course of the game (+ any from relics, warlord traits etc) if you have a single patrol, bat or brigade detachment. If you take anything more than that, you're paying a CP penalty per addition detachment - 3 per bat, we don't know the costs for the others yet.
Triple bat lists see a 6CP nerf from 8th to 9th. If you collapse the triple bat into a double bat instead, it's a 3CP nerf.
It is possible that if patrols, vanguards etc are significantly cheaper, the average list could end up with more CP than it had before - but not if they cost 3CP like the bat does.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24
Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
That unfortunately assumes that everyone gets access to a regeneration per turn ability (they don't) Also some are not very reliable being 6+ vrs 5+.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24
Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
12+4 still doesn't equal 24. As far as I can see the leathality of the game has not been toned down. You'll be hard pressed to see a game go past turn 2 especially since the model count will be a good 15-20% fewer due to the points increases.
If the table is the same size, fewer models will equal longer games in terms of turns, not shorter ones. Fewer models relative to terrain means more opportunities to hide, more ground that has to be covered, etc.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24
Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
12+4 still doesn't equal 24. As far as I can see the leathality of the game has not been toned down. You'll be hard pressed to see a game go past turn 2 especially since the model count will be a good 15-20% fewer due to the points increases.
I don't know about that. They said terrain is getting overhauled to be actually useful, so we could see a return of area terrain. Which means no more long range alpha strikes because you couldn't hide enough models behind a small wall.
I hope they rework the character rules to be less stupid. The fact I can't shoot a character who's completely exposed in the open with no models around him because there's a cultist or whatever closer to my units that the character is, that I couldn't even target because of no LoS is bad design.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
12 starting, 1 per turn and +1 from a regen relic or w/e a turn for 6 turns = 24
Protip, bonus 4 for huron and the boys in a batallion.
12+4 still doesn't equal 24. As far as I can see the leathality of the game has not been toned down. You'll be hard pressed to see a game go past turn 2 especially since the model count will be a good 15-20% fewer due to the points increases.
It's 12+(1CP +1CP)x6 turns =12+2×6=24
Its based on a bunch of assumptions you can add Clagar so Marines can actually make 26CP because you know they need them buffs.
Leth wrote: I mean, I have often spent command points to get that final 2-3 wounds off a target so I don’t see how this is significantly different.
It is an opportunity for mortal wounds that is situationally relevant. Will it apply all of the time? Nope, but I can easily see a lot of situations where it will make or break a game. Could also see a lot of situations where the risk would prevent someone from falling back.
Consolidate into a character with 2 wounds left, I would burn a CP with 10 guys to try for the kill.
I mean, assuming 30 dudes, it averages 5 mortal wounds for 1CP, that is the highest cp to return ratio I can think of. It really depends on how engagement ranges work but I could also see bigger models havin multiple units worth of models in range as well.
Again, not broken good, but situationally useful like most generic CP abilities are.
30 dudes within range of a melee target? Yeah no.
30 dudes within range of an entire unit? You think that is hard to do? Heck I could easily do that on most vehicles.
It seems like a very odd situation where you could consolidate 10+ models into striking range of a wounded character and not be able to just wrap them.
The only time this seems like it would see any use at all is if you have a ton of crappy infantry surrounding a flying model. And you need 12+ models in striking range in order to give it the same value as the typical 1CP for 1d3 MW in X situation valuation.
And if you've got that many models to work with...you often could probably just move-block it from falling back at all, which would be a far better use of your guys, unless it's super fast.
Latro_ wrote: we must be missing something with this strat because its a low even for GW. It's just rolling dice porn at this point isnt it? Like the illusion of stuff happening by dice rolls when its all pretty much filler
I mean i thought of this off the top of my head:
Tie them down: 2cp - The target unit cannot fallback in their next movement phase.
- pricey, but effective
- easy to remember
- does not involve you re-counting all the models in your unit then rolling all those dice and picking out 6's
- compliments new vehicle rules as they can shoot in combat anyway so keeps that new rule working
That is a really good idea imho, but sadly, and unless falling back is now a strat like someone here said (sorry can’t remember who), It doesn’t seem GW wants CC to have such a huge role in the game.
They would have told us by now if falling back was now a strat, instead of « type of movement » like advancing, right ?
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times means 12 turns over 6 rounds which equals 12 CP. GW has made it clear that most missions give CP every turn.
I am guessing that Combat Patrol missions won't fenerate CP.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
Games don't last 6 turns. Also 1*6 is 6, not 12 (Unless I missed where you get 1 CP in the opponents turn too?). Saying you get 6 turns out of a game is like saying an Infantry Squad under FRFSRF can kill a Knight. Theoretically, yes, but it's never going to happen.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
You might want to read todays WarCom article, it literally says in YOUR turn you generate 1CP, not every turn.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
Actually, there are 2 turns per battle round, yours and your opponents, but as I've already said the CP generation rules specifically call out your own turn for generating them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
There is no such thing as a game turn, technically, at least in 8th edition. That's a "battle round" in 8th. A battle round consists of your turn and your opponent's turn.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
Point stands, they are mixing up what a "turn" is.
GW said today that the CP back will be tied to missions, so it's possible that CP regeneration is tied to a specific mission, while others will give them every turn while others still won't give any.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
Point stands, they are mixing up what a "turn" is.
GW said today that the CP back will be tied to missions, so it's possible that CP regeneration is tied to a specific mission, while others will give them every turn while others still won't give any.
This was all caused trying to sort out your inability to do maths
12 CP for a 2k game 1CP per turn for 6 Round is 6 CP so 18CP
Plus regen not the 24 you posted about 3 pages back.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
Point stands, they are mixing up what a "turn" is.
GW said today that the CP back will be tied to missions, so it's possible that CP regeneration is tied to a specific mission, while others will give them every turn while others still won't give any.
This was all caused trying to sort out your inability to do maths
12 CP for a 2k game 1CP per turn for 6 Round is 6 CP so 18CP
Plus regen not the 24 you posted about 3 pages back.
I was posting while walking to my FLGS. If you look at the edit (which I corrected a few minutes later when I noticed it) it's been fixed.
24 CP total in a 6 turn game (12 pre game and 12 during the game) is plenty of CP. Even if a mission caps you at 18 total for a game it's still plenty of CP. Horde armies have more cheap strats than elite armies which lets them use more strats for the same points than elite armies do.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
Point stands, they are mixing up what a "turn" is.
GW said today that the CP back will be tied to missions, so it's possible that CP regeneration is tied to a specific mission, while others will give them every turn while others still won't give any.
This was all caused trying to sort out your inability to do maths
12 CP for a 2k game 1CP per turn for 6 Round is 6 CP so 18CP
Plus regen not the 24 you posted about 3 pages back.
I was posting while walking to my FLGS. If you look at the edit (which I corrected a few minutes later when I noticed it) it's been fixed.
24 CP total in a 6 turn game (12 pre game and 12 during the game) is plenty of CP. Even if a mission caps you at 18 total for a game it's still plenty of CP. Horde armies have more cheap strats than elite armies which lets them use more strats for the same points than elite armies do.
You really have to be trolling at this point
Its 12 plus 6 for 18 NOT 12 plus 12 for 24.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
Point stands, they are mixing up what a "turn" is.
GW said today that the CP back will be tied to missions, so it's possible that CP regeneration is tied to a specific mission, while others will give them every turn while others still won't give any.
This was all caused trying to sort out your inability to do maths
12 CP for a 2k game 1CP per turn for 6 Round is 6 CP so 18CP
Plus regen not the 24 you posted about 3 pages back.
I was posting while walking to my FLGS. If you look at the edit (which I corrected a few minutes later when I noticed it) it's been fixed.
24 CP total in a 6 turn game (12 pre game and 12 during the game) is plenty of CP. Even if a mission caps you at 18 total for a game it's still plenty of CP. Horde armies have more cheap strats than elite armies which lets them use more strats for the same points than elite armies do.
You really have to be trolling at this point
Its 12 plus 6 for 18 NOT 12 plus 12 for 24.
Please learn pay attention: if we gain 1 CP per TURN then that totals 24 for a 6 turn game. If we gain 1 CP per ROUND (as in, only on our own turns or the start of the round) then it's 18.
The turn order page says players gain CP every turn. That single image from today says on our own turns and is likely tied to a specific mission or game size.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no CP gained in Combat Patrol, 1 CP per round in Incursion, 1 CP a turn in Strike Force, and Onslaught would do 2 a turn.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
Point stands, they are mixing up what a "turn" is.
GW said today that the CP back will be tied to missions, so it's possible that CP regeneration is tied to a specific mission, while others will give them every turn while others still won't give any.
This was all caused trying to sort out your inability to do maths
12 CP for a 2k game 1CP per turn for 6 Round is 6 CP so 18CP
Plus regen not the 24 you posted about 3 pages back.
I was posting while walking to my FLGS. If you look at the edit (which I corrected a few minutes later when I noticed it) it's been fixed.
24 CP total in a 6 turn game (12 pre game and 12 during the game) is plenty of CP. Even if a mission caps you at 18 total for a game it's still plenty of CP. Horde armies have more cheap strats than elite armies which lets them use more strats for the same points than elite armies do.
You really have to be trolling at this point
Its 12 plus 6 for 18 NOT 12 plus 12 for 24.
Please learn pay attention: if we gain 1 CP per TURN then that totals 24 for a 6 turn game. If we gain 1 CP per ROUND (as in, only on our own turns or the start of the round) then it's 18.
The turn order page says players gain CP every turn. That single image from today says on our own turns and is likely tied to a specific mission or game size.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no CP gained in Combat Patrol, 1 CP per round in Incursion, 1 CP a turn in Strike Force, and Onslaught would do 2 a turn.
Or you know what they have shown us is the way it works and you are wildly misinterpreting that sentence (wich i think very likely). You really have a problem with numbers today though 60 does not equal 60 and 12+6=24 so far
ClockworkZion wrote: Eh, we're looking at up to 24 CP in between the game and the list building phase, so most armies have more CP overall, just less front loaded. And less need for triple Battalions for large amounts of CP.
How does 12+2=24?
1 CP per turn times 6 turna is 12 CP.
They said you get one in your own command phase not both.
The turn order page says both players generate CP each turn. CP generation rules are tied to missions though so it could shift based on the mission type and game size.
Yeah there is only 6 turns 1CP per turn is 6 not 12
The live stream made it much clearer but jot definitive each player has their command phase you don't appear to do anything in your opponents command phase.
You're confusing player turns and game turns.
8th (and 9th) doesn't have 'game turns', it has 'battle rounds'.
Point stands, they are mixing up what a "turn" is.
GW said today that the CP back will be tied to missions, so it's possible that CP regeneration is tied to a specific mission, while others will give them every turn while others still won't give any.
This was all caused trying to sort out your inability to do maths
12 CP for a 2k game 1CP per turn for 6 Round is 6 CP so 18CP
Plus regen not the 24 you posted about 3 pages back.
I was posting while walking to my FLGS. If you look at the edit (which I corrected a few minutes later when I noticed it) it's been fixed.
24 CP total in a 6 turn game (12 pre game and 12 during the game) is plenty of CP. Even if a mission caps you at 18 total for a game it's still plenty of CP. Horde armies have more cheap strats than elite armies which lets them use more strats for the same points than elite armies do.
You really have to be trolling at this point
Its 12 plus 6 for 18 NOT 12 plus 12 for 24.
Please learn pay attention: if we gain 1 CP per TURN then that totals 24 for a 6 turn game. If we gain 1 CP per ROUND (as in, only on our own turns or the start of the round) then it's 18.
The turn order page says players gain CP every turn. That single image from today says on our own turns and is likely tied to a specific mission or game size.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no CP gained in Combat Patrol, 1 CP per round in Incursion, 1 CP a turn in Strike Force, and Onslaught would do 2 a turn.
Or you know what they have shown us is the way it works and you are wildly misinterpreting that sentence (wich i think very likely). You really have a problem with numbers today though 60 does not equal 60 and 12+6=24 so far
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
I don't know yet. But if it's just CP why not say that? Also how are you dismissing something that literally just says:
Command Phase:
"How it works including getting 1 CP on your own turns"
As mission or gamesize specific?
This whole discussion is bizarre as you're normally championing waiting for all the info.
Yep, yep. New stuff too.
I hope we get to see Commando Blob, Orb Hands or Gunner Shroom in an army at some point
I know, right? I mean, the arguments about stratagems are faaaaaascinating, but there's some wild possibilities there. Feels kinda RT that way.
Thats certainly some freaky grim dark gak right there... :O
Love it. Im glad somebody esle noticed the sphere thing most likely being a nod to Astrates youtube project.
Wow, that artwork is incredible. One of the pics gives us a better look at the new Ancient and the Chaplain.
The pilgrims on Terra pic is worth a closer examination. I don't think we've seen the Emperor depicted like that before. The face doesn't even look like the Emp of other artworks. And the spiky wings/cape look pretty similar to some models from the Stormcast range.
As for the Xeno pic, if we get even half those models in miniature form, that'd be amazing. Especially the Lord of Skulls style guy in the top right. And what looks like some genestealer patriarch with a gun
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
We don't know yet because we haven't seen the full rulebook.
I freely admit I can be wrong, but unless we have a new resource they haven't mentioned then the only thing I can think would fit that term would be command points.
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
I don't know yet. But if it's just CP why not say that? Also how are you dismissing something that literally just says:
Command Phase:
"How it works including getting 1 CP on your own turns"
As mission or gamesize specific?
This whole discussion is bizarre as you're normally championing waiting for all the info.
Stu Black said in the stream that not every mission generates CP in the Command phase. That's why I suspect it's game size related and not just a universal constant.
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
We don't know yet because we haven't seen the full rulebook.
I freely admit I can be wrong, but unless we have a new resource they haven't mentioned then the only thing I can think would fit that term would be command points.
If anything Command Resources sounds like mission specific add-ons.
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
We don't know yet because we haven't seen the full rulebook.
I freely admit I can be wrong, but unless we have a new resource they haven't mentioned then the only thing I can think would fit that term would be command points.
If anything Command Resources sounds like mission specific add-ons.
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
We don't know yet because we haven't seen the full rulebook.
I freely admit I can be wrong, but unless we have a new resource they haven't mentioned then the only thing I can think would fit that term would be command points.
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
I don't know yet. But if it's just CP why not say that? Also how are you dismissing something that literally just says:
Command Phase:
"How it works including getting 1 CP on your own turns"
As mission or gamesize specific?
This whole discussion is bizarre as you're normally championing waiting for all the info.
Stu Black said in the stream that not every mission generates CP in the Command phase. That's why I suspect it's game size related and not just a universal constant.
I had not seen that. So a legitimate thanks for the info. I would still interpret that as a missions rules overriding the general Command Phase image we have been given.
Eldarain wrote: The turn order page doesn't say you gain CP every turn. You're making assumptions on both sides of the argument.
Then enlighten me on ehat "Command Resources" are outside of COMMAND Points.
We don't know. But command resources are not, actualy, factually, legibly the same word as command point, and so it is taking a huge leap of logic to assume those two mean the same thing
This is admittedly just a theory, but based on what Reece teased on the most recent SFTFL about "controversial" changes to the bonus point for missions, I think one possibility is that mission-related CP generation Stu was talking about is that on some missions, the bonus point will not be in victory points, but, instead, in command points.
Jesus feth would you stop making the argument look bad?
It says CLEARLY that you generate a command point on YOUR command phase.
Just like you move units on YOUR movement phase.
That being said, and putting aside his sillyness.
A 2000 game starts at 12 CP Even assuming a mere 4-turn game (donno about you, most my games last to turn 5-6, even if they are less eventful stuff still happen and VP are collected, and sometimes a single reroll could be meaningful on them as there are few models left), it is still 16 CP, without any internal CP generation from missions/army
Meaning, a double battalion that will have to pay 3 CP will end up with 13 CP by turn 4. the exact same point as the 8th system, except less front loaded as a few of them are generated over the 4 "meaningful" turns. a bit of extra change will be left for turn 5-6, when the game goes on.
Any single-battalion army is a net gain, and a big one going form 8 to 12 initial and 4 more during the game. a brigade army starts with less, but over time gets more. (turn 3 you reach the old 15, beyond that you are in the positive)
The only armies honestly getting hurt are battalion farmers. that being said, if specialized detachments cost too much CP, that could hard on the battalion+specialized armies, but if they are decently priced, these armies will also see an improvement. (they currently stand on 9 CP, meaning if a specialized detachment costs even 5 CP-by turn 2 you are with as much CP as you had in 8th)
An army with JUST a specialist detachment in 8th has mere 4 CP, making it take a battalion for CP generation. in 9th, guessing a 5CP cost for such detachment and no refund at all (nor other benefit) when it's your primary, you still end up with 7CP up front, and 11 by turn 4. a pretty darn big improvement.
3-detachments, that you only ever see used for either soup, or CP farms, are the real losers, and that's good. CP farms are gamy and silly, and soup needs a price for having the best of multiple codcies.
Tl;Dr
If you can build an army with 1 detachment, you are going to have MORE CP than in 8th. much more.
Brigade/double battalion are going to have about as much CP as they currently do, but a bit more spread out.
Battalion+speciailst are currently an unknown, probably same spot like brigade and double.
Superheavy armies (knights etc) are a total unknown on CP stance.
Triple detachments are going to see a massive CP decrease.
This is going to shape army list conventions, with an incentive to actually fill up units and use the non-mandatory slots rather than squeezing another detachment
But by no means the game is going to get less CP to throw around. some will have less, some will have more, some will be pretty much unaffected.
Using all the different army slots in actually a CP benefit now, rather than a deterent.
Yep, yep. New stuff too. I hope we get to see Commando Blob, Orb Hands or Gunner Shroom in an army at some point
I know, right? I mean, the arguments about stratagems are faaaaaascinating, but there's some wild possibilities there. Feels kinda RT that way.
Thats certainly some freaky grim dark gak right there... :O
Love it. Im glad somebody esle noticed the sphere thing most likely being a nod to Astrates youtube project.
Wow, that artwork is incredible. One of the pics gives us a better look at the new Ancient and the Chaplain. The pilgrims on Terra pic is worth a closer examination. I don't think we've seen the Emperor depicted like that before. The face doesn't even look like the Emp of other artworks. And the spiky wings/cape look pretty similar to some models from the Stormcast range. As for the Xeno pic, if we get even half those models in miniature form, that'd be amazing. Especially the Lord of Skulls style guy in the top right. And what looks like some genestealer patriarch with a gun
He looks like an iron warrior chaos dude to me. I really like the angel looking thing right at the tip of the image. Certainly stuff of nightmares. You are right about the emps being portrayed in a slightly different way than what im used to.
The Imperial Blood angels artwork is pretty gritty.
TIN FOIL HAT TIME:
1. I spy a new type of drop pod or dreanaught (to the bottom-left of the blood angels banner)
2. Those thrall guys seem quite unique but uniform.. Maybe cheap chaff troops to replace scouts that are not servitors? _
I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.
If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP
But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.
Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.
Nevelon wrote: I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.
If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP
But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.
Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.
It said on the stream that he still gives you CPs, so my guess it's in addition to what we've seen so far.
Nevelon wrote: I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.
If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP
But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.
Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.
Same with calgar and other characters...
Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.
Nevelon wrote: I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.
If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP
But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.
Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.
It said on the stream that he still gives you CPs, so my guess it's in addition to what we've seen so far.
Nevelon wrote: I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.
If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP
But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.
Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.
Same with calgar and other characters...
Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.
Calgar can actually be in your core detachment, and thus give full points.
So you spend your 3 CP for the battalion, put Calgar in there, which nets you the 3 point rebate. And then Calgar gives his 2 bonus. Net gain +2 CP
With Guiliman, you pay 3 for a battalion, pay whatever for a supreme command, (or whatever have space for a LoW). Gain G’s +3 CP. Maybe get a rebate on the detachment he’s in. Net +0 CP, maybe -1 or 2, depending if it gives a rebate for having the warlord.
So technically he still gives the CP, but practically, they all get spent on detachments.
Guilliman is just kind of bad now and getting worse. It's a pity. I started custodes with an idea of building a crusade force centered around Gman, but I haven't had any reason to take him in a while.
Nevelon wrote: I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.
If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP
But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.
Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.
Same with calgar and other characters...
Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.
Calgar can actually be in your core detachment, and thus give full points.
So you spend your 3 CP for the battalion, put Calgar in there, which nets you the 3 point rebate. And then Calgar gives his 2 bonus. Net gain +2 CP
With Guiliman, you pay 3 for a battalion, pay whatever for a supreme command, (or whatever have space for a LoW). Gain G’s +3 CP. Maybe get a rebate on the detachment he’s in. Net +0 CP, maybe -1 or 2, depending if it gives a rebate for having the warlord.
So technically he still gives the CP, but practically, they all get spent on detachments.
So we know Rebates are only for Patrols, Battalions and Brigades that have your warlord within.
If Bobby G is taken in a Supreme Command, I expect that you will pay maybe 1-2 CP for that detachment.
Bobby is then going to give you CP back for including him (whatever that is, don't know his rules...3?) So it's probably a wash overall, but at least you're not getting charged for adding that extra detachment.
Eldarain wrote: I would expect the more specialized detachments to have a higher cost than the balanced ones but that's just idle speculation
I doubt that tbh, simply because you will never get points back for them, even if warlord within.
Case in point...Deathwing. If it costs 3-4CP for a Vanguard, they would pretty much start with close to nothing, which they do now and is supposed to be the opposite of what 9th offers.
Eldarain wrote: I would expect the more specialized detachments to have a higher cost than the balanced ones but that's just idle speculation
I doubt that tbh, simply because you will never get points back for them, even if warlord within.
Case in point...Deathwing. If it costs 3-4CP for a Vanguard, they would pretty much start with close to nothing, which they do now and is supposed to be the opposite of what 9th offers.
Yeah, it's another reason I think that the current 1CP generating detachments will probably cost only 1CP. They specifically said they wanted to encourage people to just take the models they want, without feeling like there's a detachment tax, so it would make little sense to replace forcing people to take troops in order to generate CP with...forcing people to take troops to avoid costing CP. That'd effectively just be ending up in the same place they were trying to escape from, in a different way.
The warlord making the detachment not cost CP if it's one of the detachments that requires troops seems to me like a compromise so that people who want to take troops can, and can get a very minor bonus for it, without making it a requirement.
It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.
ClockworkZion wrote: It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.
That would be a great development for those classic armies from the background.
ClockworkZion wrote: It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.
That would be a great development for those classic armies from the background.
It'd fit GW's goal of trying to get people to play what they like over just what games the system the best too.
ClockworkZion wrote:It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.
That is a great idea would be very cool. A master in terminator armour could do likewise for Deathwing.
Well, sort of. It'd lock people into taking special characters for the CP bonuses, something that they have experimented a little with, but recently seem to have moved away from - a good thing, in my opinion, because it feels kinda lame to be taking special characters not for their own abilities but just as a CP battery.
Seems like it'd be better to just make it into a special rule for the army the way the Drukhari codex tried to do in 8th (though it failed because the specific rule was junk), not dependent on taking a specific character.
ClockworkZion wrote:It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.
That is a great idea would be very cool. A master in terminator armour could do likewise for Deathwing.
Belial is the master of the Deathwing:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, sort of. It'd lock people into taking special characters for the CP bonuses, something that they have experimented a little with, but recently seem to have moved away from - a good thing, in my opinion, because it feels kinda lame to be taking special characters not for their own abilities but just as a CP battery.
Seems like it'd be better to just make it into a special rule for the army the way the Drukhari codex tried to do in 8th (though it failed because the specific rule was junk), not dependent on taking a specific character.
I think it's on par with taking special characters to unlock "count as troops" options and would at least let us see some characterful armies a bit more often.
ClockworkZion wrote:It's very possible that future codex updates may include special clauses for returning CP for certain detachments. Like Belial giving CP back if he's the Warlord in a Vanguard detachment.
That is a great idea would be very cool. A master in terminator armour could do likewise for Deathwing.
Belial is the master of the Deathwing:
Lol. I confused him with someone else. Though now that I think about it, I think having that rule for space marine characters in the right armour would be good rather than it just being named character based. Like a captain with a jump pack doing the same thing with a fast attack based detachment.
It also sounds like taking another faction along with another detachment may also cost more:
Games Workshop wrote:An army drawn exclusively from the same Faction and comprising a single Detachment is the most strategically flexible on account of their experience fighting alongside one another, and therefore offers the most Command points.
To me, that sentence reads that it may cost more to take an Airwing of Drukhari alongside my Battalion of Eldar, more than it would if I were just taking an Airwing of Eldar. Maybe -3 CP for another detachment, -2 more if the detachment is not of the same faction or something.
Well, maybe. Or it just means that a battle-forged detachment gives you the most CP, (1) because it's a single detachment, and (2) because it's battle-forged, and therefore gets you the battle-forged CP bonus each turn.
I.e. you can read the "single faction and a single detachment" as just code for "battle-forged single detachment" rather than saying anything more than that.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, maybe. Or it just means that a battle-forged detachment gives you the most CP, (1) because it's a single detachment, and (2) because it's battle-forged, and therefore gets you the battle-forged CP bonus each turn.
I.e. you can read the "single faction and a single detachment" as just code for "battle-forged single detachment" rather than saying anything more than that.
Maybe so. I just remember them saying that they were "doing away with soup" on the first previews. Seems like making it more expensive to unlock allies would do that. I guess we'll see.
Leth wrote: Have we seen if it will even be possible to have mixed detachments anymore? I get the feeling that detachments might be mono faction going forward.
Inquisitor rules will still be valid in 9th, but they have special privileges.
Nevelon wrote: I wonder if they are going to change how Guiliman works with CPs.
If he’s your warlord, you get 3 CP
But he doesn’t fit into the “core” detachments, so you will not get the rebate for having your warlord in one of those. And probably need to pay extra for one to house him.
Technically his rule still works, but you are probably going to just break even, or even loose one or two CPs for taking him.
Same with calgar and other characters...
Not all factions get those so straight some armies as a single battalion may start with 14 CP, +1 CP every turn. compared to some that will need to start on 9 because they NEED 2 detachments. That's nearly double the CP just for having a HQ that gives you CP and being able to mono build. I wonder how it all fits together but so far I can see a few bumps on the road.
Calgar can actually be in your core detachment, and thus give full points.
So you spend your 3 CP for the battalion, put Calgar in there, which nets you the 3 point rebate. And then Calgar gives his 2 bonus. Net gain +2 CP
With Guiliman, you pay 3 for a battalion, pay whatever for a supreme command, (or whatever have space for a LoW). Gain G’s +3 CP. Maybe get a rebate on the detachment he’s in. Net +0 CP, maybe -1 or 2, depending if it gives a rebate for having the warlord.
So technically he still gives the CP, but practically, they all get spent on detachments.
So we know Rebates are only for Patrols, Battalions and Brigades that have your warlord within.
If Bobby G is taken in a Supreme Command, I expect that you will pay maybe 1-2 CP for that detachment.
Bobby is then going to give you CP back for including him (whatever that is, don't know his rules...3?) So it's probably a wash overall, but at least you're not getting charged for adding that extra detachment.
I mean the SIMPLIST solution would be to just get rid of the LOW distinction and make Lord of Wars a HQ or heavy support option unit depending. I mean, on a practical level, Gulliman isn't much differant from Abaddon, Ghaz or even Calgar,
Smellingsalts wrote: Everyone is playing by the averages, and again, I'm not discounting them, but you can also get lucky. Could you punish someone for falling back before? Now you can, and it might win you the game. These things are all situational.
Ah yes luck. Always the solution! Forget about playing good. Just rely on luck.
And besides if enemy can fall back and you get to use this things are pear shaped anyway. problem with fall back for assault armies isn't they don't take hit. It's that you are shot freely then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smellingsalts wrote: Cut Them Down is meant to punish you when you run away. Will it do a lot of mortals, probably not. Is it realistic, i.e. running from terminators vs grots is no different, no. But if you need to punish someone for running away, it is a tool in your toolbox. Sure, you have thirty other more effective tools in other situations, but none of them apply to this situation. Someone once told me don't save your silver bullets. I think he meant saving your points for a theoretical event that may happen in the future shouldn't trump using them to save yourself right now. I am curious to see how many games are won and lost using this stratagem.
I’ve been wondering about whether they will use character/army rules to modify the cost of detachments. I really hope they do, as it’s a neat way to encourage fluffy builds, hopefully without adding too many abusable loopholes.
the_scotsman wrote: I think compared to most 8th ed lists at this point, 12+1 per turn will be less. I think with armies nobody would ever really consider taking in the context of 8th, it will be significantly more.
2 bat's in 8th ed had less than this. Necrons couldn't hope for 2 bat's. Basically any army that takes less than 3 det's(unless it's brigade+battalion) in 8th ed gets more in 9th
And with likely 20%+ point ups getting multiple det's would be harder anyway. And reduces CP drain.
Also less game revolves around stratagems the better. One of the worst crutches 8th ed created
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: About the total power level including both armies: There are lots of open and narrative scenarios in 8th where one side has more forces than the other. Totaling them together can make sense when it's not always two equal armies facing each other.
So a narrative scenario can say Strike Force and be 200PL but it might say that one side gets 75PL and the other gets 125PL but has harder victory conditions.
Anyone looking for a fun game should play the unequal army size scenarios in the Open Play section of the 8th edition rulebook. They are great fun.
Yeah either there are those or the total power level thing on table is 100% senseless waste of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: At best let’s say I’m using 30 Gretchin and trying to tie up your Newly improved lord of change So it can’t go around sucking up my psychic powers... we already know they can shoot into (and out?) combat now. At best I’m probably only getting what 18? Models within 1in of the LoC if I am able to completely encircle the base. That’s 3 mortal wounds on average. Which is the ideal situation. Which I admit isn’t bad but for most armies this isn’t going to happen.
Being tarpitted isn’t as bad as it use to be now that you can shoot into (and maybe out of) combat.
We know they can shoot FROM combat. No word yet can they shoot INTO combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: 30 dudes within range of an entire unit? You think that is hard to do? Heck I could easily do that on most vehicles.
My opponents are usually sensible and do the easy thing and prevent it. Why not? Easy to prevent.
Oh and if you have 30 guys in range how on earth the enemy can even fall back? You would have to have screwed up big time as you should prevent fall back and if 30 is in range only reason they can fall back is because you screwed up and ALLOWED him to fall back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Please learn pay attention: if we gain 1 CP per TURN then that totals 24 for a 6 turn game. If we gain 1 CP per ROUND (as in, only on our own turns or the start of the round) then it's 18.
The turn order page says players gain CP every turn. That single image from today says on our own turns and is likely tied to a specific mission or game size.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no CP gained in Combat Patrol, 1 CP per round in Incursion, 1 CP a turn in Strike Force, and Onslaught would do 2 a turn.
Lol. GW flat out says "1CP per YOUR command phase". You then decide that means you get 2 per battle round.
You ignore flat out what GW already has stated. Lol. Next you probably ignore that detachments cost CP and decide each detachment gives CP instead
Eldarain wrote: I would expect the more specialized detachments to have a higher cost than the balanced ones but that's just idle speculation
I doubt that tbh, simply because you will never get points back for them, even if warlord within.
Case in point...Deathwing. If it costs 3-4CP for a Vanguard, they would pretty much start with close to nothing, which they do now and is supposed to be the opposite of what 9th offers.
But they have least tax and access to best units.
Why anybody would take bat for 2nd det if vanquard is 1 or 2 CP? Only if you are newbie or just want to build bad army.
Balance needed. Best det's, highest cost. They gave least in 8th due to being best outside CP so bat/Brigade needed to give more CP to compensate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote: It also sounds like taking another faction along with another detachment may also cost more:
Games Workshop wrote:An army drawn exclusively from the same Faction and comprising a single Detachment is the most strategically flexible on account of their experience fighting alongside one another, and therefore offers the most Command points.
To me, that sentence reads that it may cost more to take an Airwing of Drukhari alongside my Battalion of Eldar, more than it would if I were just taking an Airwing of Eldar. Maybe -3 CP for another detachment, -2 more if the detachment is not of the same faction or something.
Eh no. Single faction single detachment is 1 detachment and with warlord there in bat/Brigade is free. Any addition of other codexes requires detachment which cost CP.
Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
Ice_can wrote: Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
You can be fairly sure drukhari and tau commanders gets day 1 errata.
Its proving very tricky. Across all my armies the two things that are standing out are:
Battalion is 3 HQ - its really hard to get these HQ that you nomrally rely on a bit back into the list.
Heavy support is also proving to be a big one, most armies i have (not just orks) are on the 4-6 heavy support front, looks like spear heads are gonna have to be a purchase for me or stick at dual bata if spear heads cost more. Prob is all this leaves ye down on CP.
All a bit early with the points changes etc, but interesting exercise at the minute
Leth wrote: I think this guy has never heard of the “Fly” keyword before.
Again, no one is saying it is super powerful, they are saying it has situational uses.
But that seems to offend you on some level that people can see a situational use for it.
Except people are saying it's good stratagem. It's not. It's poor. You might get weak use out of it 1/100 times. Significant result out of it even less times. And so far that's only bone horde melee units have been given after being given kick in the loin after kick in the loin so it's rather insulting that GW hypes out this as some sort of good boost when if you even get to use it means you are already screwed and then isn't even that useful. 1-2 primaris marines die if they flee from orks! Woo! Of course them fleeing means you are screwed anyway so 1-2 dead marine is hardly useful. But then we have noob players in this thread as well praising how it's good when even cursory look at it reveals it's bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Latro_ wrote: Anyone already looking at their lists to try and scale down detachments? here is my ork list:
Yep. I went with assumption 1600 pts will be about new 2k and tried with sisters. Sure feeling cramped! Starting to think I might want to get and paint some VH melee elements rather than rely on BR. Also 3rd exorcist might be one of the first things to go.
Going to change my lists quite a bit. Assuming tournaments don't go to 2500 or 3000 right off the bat. In that case odds are nothing changes for me.
Its proving very tricky. Across all my armies the two things that are standing out are:
Battalion is 3 HQ - its really hard to get these HQ that you nomrally rely on a bit back into the list.
Heavy support is also proving to be a big one, most armies i have (not just orks) are on the 4-6 heavy support front, looks like spear heads are gonna have to be a purchase for me or stick at dual bata if spear heads cost more. Prob is all this leaves ye down on CP.
All a bit early with the points changes etc, but interesting exercise at the minute
Find room for some elites and go brigade? That and with points costs going up you'll have to cut something out anyway.
Ice_can wrote: Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
Full agreement. It already grants an advantage to factions that can write viable single-detachment armies, if those that need two are paying the same to do so as a craftworld and DE force, or Knights and Loyal 32 and whatever, then they're just get humped twice over.
I really like the principle, but on the info we have I think it really harms some armies (at least until they get new codices with their own doctrines and super doctrines or substantially rewritten CTs).
Cut them down is a wasted opportunity. Falling back from teo grots is more of a worry than turning your back on the Swarmlord or Jain Zar? Maybe there's more to come to keep folks pinned.
Its proving very tricky. Across all my armies the two things that are standing out are:
Battalion is 3 HQ - its really hard to get these HQ that you nomrally rely on a bit back into the list.
Heavy support is also proving to be a big one, most armies i have (not just orks) are on the 4-6 heavy support front, looks like spear heads are gonna have to be a purchase for me or stick at dual bata if spear heads cost more. Prob is all this leaves ye down on CP.
All a bit early with the points changes etc, but interesting exercise at the minute
Find room for some elites and go brigade? That and with points costs going up you'll have to cut something out anyway.
I'm thinking with the pts hikes i'm gonna cut the characters across lists and the odd unit here like excess troops so:
Spoiler:
2000pt Orks (Standard Army) - 13CP
Battalion <Deathskullz> <Dread Waagh 1cp>
Warboss (Power Klaw, Squig, Kombi-Skorcha) 95 h
Big Mek <WL> Big Killa Boss (Shokk Attack Gun <Relic> 80 h
Weirdboy (Da jump) 62 h
30 Shoota Boyz (3x BS, 3x TBombz, Nob, Killsaw) 240 t
30 Shoota Boyz (3x BS, 3x TBombz, Nob, Killsaw) 240 t
30 Slugga Boyz (3x TBombz, Nob, Killsaw) 225 t
10 Grots 30 t
10 Grots 30 t
10 Grots 30 t
2 Deffkoptas (Kopta Rokkits, Bigbomms) 88
2 Deffkoptas (Kopta Rokkits, Bigbomms) 88 f
2 Deffkoptas (Kopta Rokkits, Bigbomms) 88 f
15 Lootas 255 f
4 Mekguns (Smasha guns) 132 hs 5 Mekguns (Smasha guns) 165 hs
10 Grots removed
combined 3x3 mek to a 4 and a 5
removed weird boy
removed big mek with kff
shaves off 150pts which is pushing the 10% price hike, prob need to drop more
I would have liked to see something similar to overwatch for fall backs.
You can make CC attacks against the unit, that falls back, hitting on 6s, wounding normally, etc...
The stratagem seems to work not really good, if used for a character / single model, trying to hurt a unit that falls back. On the other hand, mortal wounds deny you any saving throw (except the FnP, that some armies can not get).
But at least it's a step in the right direction, I think. Melee armies need a tool against those fall back moves.
My problem with Brigades are the additional compulsory Troops requirements. I'm one of those people who doesn't like bringing a min-sized unit of Rippers to fulfil a "troop tax", so avoided Brigades as I didn't want to bring more and more and more Gaunts.
Plus FA in a lot of armies just sucks, and I don't want to have to bring Gargoyles or Raveners.
My problem with Brigades are the additional compulsory Troops requirements. I'm one of those people who doesn't like bringing a min-sized unit of Rippers to fulfil a "troop tax", so avoided Brigades as I didn't want to bring more and more and more Gaunts.
Plus FA in a lot of armies just sucks, and I don't want to have to bring Gargoyles or Raveners.
Unfortunately without the new points costs we are straight up lacking in formation ti be able to do more than guess yet.
GW have said they have increased points across the bored, rebalanced point's, increased them by an avarage of 10% and apparently blast weapons are seeing quite the increase in points.
None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
In terms of hitting as units fall back, IMO they should bring back a version of the crossfire rule and run them down rules.
Firstly, if your unit if falling back in the direction of an enemy troop, they should take mortal wounds on a 4+ for the crossfire rule, with the amount of dice rolled being for the unit performing the crossfire, not the unit falling back, as you shouldn't be falling back int he direction of the enemy really. I like this as it boosts tactical and strategic play, you can set traps and other BS like falling back towards an objective can be stopped.
Secondly, I think the attacking unit should have a chance to catch and run down units again with the 6+ mortal wound per chasing unit being applied, which gives a hard conundrum for the falling back player to make, do they attempt the fall back knowing they could still be caught? Up side is for the player falling back, if it's 10 intercessors chasing down 20 cultists, you no longer have 20 rolls to contend with, just 10.
As a balance to this, I think trapping units should no longer be an option, so you cannot lock units in combat, but with the inclusion of run them down and crossfire, you may think twice about falling back, as you could take damage and/or actually not escape combat in the end.
An up side to this is, large units are encouraged for the purposes of performing crossfire and run them down.
Ice_can wrote: None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
Well given GW's approach to everything is always "change the entire system without thinking through how this impacts individual units", it wouldn't be the first time.
Ice_can wrote: None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
Well given GW's approach to everything is always "change the entire system without thinking through how this impacts individual units", it wouldn't be the first time.
I for one am a bit anxious, if the cultists relative hike is normal for chaff units, and there were alot of them that didn't work, then chaff armies get fethed hard.
And i am for one sick of not beeing able to field my r&h.
Ice_can wrote:Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
That's pretty much baked into the system already with the first detachment being practically free and latter costing CPs And I don't know about drukari, but tau manages just fine in 1 battalion. Heck, i'd create the second battalion ONLY to generate CP.
The commander limit still sucks, but honestly a commander is just a more efficient crisis suit anyway. (except coldstars, they actually give something special. they are also a great fun ruiner for the opponent)
Ice_can wrote:Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
tneva82 wrote:
Ice_can wrote: Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
You can be fairly sure drukhari and tau commanders gets day 1 errata.
Assuming they were honest about PA being written with 9th in mind, not going to happen
FSE got explicit rule change to allow two commanders per detachment. that would not need to exist had they intended to remove the commander limit.
Ice_can wrote:Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
That's pretty much baked into the system already with the first detachment being practically free and latter costing CPs And I don't know about drukari, but tau manages just fine in 1 battalion. Heck, i'd create the second battalion ONLY to generate CP.
The commander limit still sucks, but honestly a commander is just a more efficient crisis suit anyway. (except coldstars, they actually give something special. they are also a great fun ruiner for the opponent)
tneva82 wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote: Adding a codex definataly should have a CP cost attached to it otherwise Drukari or Tau for example that have structural limitations in their codex that means they effectively need to take multiple detachments are going to end up playing with the same CP as Soup.
That isn't fair or balanced, 2 subfactions should should cost your second detachment, dipping into a second codex shoukd cost even more
Guard plus knight's, Spacemarine Soup, Deathwatch plus guard.
You can be fairly sure drukhari and tau commanders gets day 1 errata.
Assuming they were honest about PA being written with 9th in mind, not going to happen
FSE got explicit rule change to allow two commanders per detachment. that would not need to exist had they intended to remove the commander limit.
Tau don't function well in 1 battalion the limit on HQ's is killer, Commanders aren't more efficent Crisis suits they are actually functional Crisis suits, that units hasn't worked yet in 8th, closest it has got is 1 FSE boosted unit on a CP binge.
Not to mention if the changes to charictor targeting are true coldstars will start being very quick kills.
Can anyone confirm what a dude said on the "cut them down is a laugh" thread, about enemy units being able falling back « Through » your tripoiting models in 9th Ed ? I wasn’t able to find anything on this
Its proving very tricky. Across all my armies the two things that are standing out are:
Battalion is 3 HQ - its really hard to get these HQ that you nomrally rely on a bit back into the list.
Heavy support is also proving to be a big one, most armies i have (not just orks) are on the 4-6 heavy support front, looks like spear heads are gonna have to be a purchase for me or stick at dual bata if spear heads cost more. Prob is all this leaves ye down on CP.
All a bit early with the points changes etc, but interesting exercise at the minute
Without going into detail, the main issue is probably trying to fit an 8th edition army into 9th edition. There is a good chance that you might not want some of those models in 9th, but others have become much more valuable. I can see especially the SSAG and gretchin getting a lot less airtime in 9th, but that is mostly speculation at this time.
The new way to build an army is just a new puzzle to solve, eventually, new builds and best practices for building your armies will emerge.
My problem with the accross the board price points rise is that, as always, it fails to address the actual problems of relative unit costs.
Let's take the worst case scenario based on the information at hand and say that horde units are going to be easier to kill with blast weapons going up buy 50%.
So Cultists, Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks/Gretchin. If there are others I'm forgetting let me know.
So let's look at Gaunts. Termagants are 4 points per model. People take them over Hormagaunts as we know that Hormies are not worth 6 points each.
"But Hormagaunts are 5 points each?"
Find me a Tyranid player alive who doesn't take Adrenal Glands on Hormies. As I said, they're 6 points each.
So say things go up 50%, and Termagants are now worth 6 points each... and H-Gaunts are now 9 each? If they weren't worth it at 6, they're certainly not worth it at 9. Now I'm still bringing Termagants, just less of them.
They haven't increased granularity here. They've just made a unit that wasn't worth its current cost cost more. The net result will just be Tyranid players waiting for an FAQ or new Codex to come out to fix the problem we've been waiting for them to fix and that they made worse with the start of a new edition.
And a new Tyranid Codex means there's a chance that Cruddace might get a third attempt at fething us over again.
2. Those thrall guys seem quite unique but uniform.. Maybe cheap chaff troops to replace scouts that are not servitors? _
Oh, so Chapter Serfs then?
I mean, it would be cool if Chapter Serfs were in the game, but they've been popping up in Space Marine artwork for years now and have yet to make an appearance on the table.
2. Those thrall guys seem quite unique but uniform.. Maybe cheap chaff troops to replace scouts that are not servitors? _
Oh, so Chapter Serfs then?
I mean, it would be cool if Chapter Serfs were in the game, but they've been popping up in Space Marine artwork for years now and have yet to make an appearance on the table.
Chapter serfs are so much more interesting to me that the array of godawafukl designs had to suffer in the last decade - from Centurions to the Mini-aircraft....bloody awful crowbarred in crap
That's pretty much baked into the system already with the first detachment being practically free and latter costing CPs And I don't know about drukari, but tau manages just fine in 1 battalion. Heck, i'd create the second battalion ONLY to generate CP.
The commander limit still sucks, but honestly a commander is just a more efficient crisis suit anyway. (except coldstars, they actually give something special. they are also a great fun ruiner for the opponent)
Assuming they were honest about PA being written with 9th in mind, not going to happen
FSE got explicit rule change to allow two commanders per detachment. that would not need to exist had they intended to remove the commander limit.
a) you don't add battalions to generate CP b) gw says lots of things. Only small part of it is true. Marine and sister codex also supposedly 9th ed in mind yet it has buff for staying mono which makes no sense when core rules already reward it. Marine codex 1 was 9th ed compliant codex. Marine codex mark 2 is 8th ed codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My problem with the accross the board price points rise is that, as always, it fails to address the actual problems of relative unit costs.
Let's take the worst case scenario based on the information at hand and say that horde units are going to be easier to kill with blast weapons going up buy 50%.
So Cultists, Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks/Gretchin. If there are others I'm forgetting let me know.
So let's look at Gaunts. Termagants are 4 points per model. People take them over Hormagaunts as we know that Hormies are not worth 6 points each.
"But Hormagaunts are 5 points each?"
Find me a Tyranid player alive who doesn't take Adrenal Glands on Hormies. As I said, they're 6 points each.
So say things go up 50%, and Termagants are now worth 6 points each... and H-Gaunts are now 9 each? If they weren't worth it at 6, they're certainly not worth it at 9. Now I'm still bringing Termagants, just less of them.
They haven't increased granularity here. They've just made a unit that wasn't worth its current cost cost more. The net result will just be Tyranid players waiting for an FAQ or new Codex to come out to fix the problem we've been waiting for them to fix and that they made worse with the start of a new edition.
And a new Tyranid Codex means there's a chance that Cruddace might get a third attempt at fething us over again.
I'm sure you mean 5th chance, we've already had the 5th, 6th, 8th ed codexes plus Blood of Baal.
Ice_can wrote: None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
Well given GW's approach to everything is always "change the entire system without thinking through how this impacts individual units", it wouldn't be the first time.
When they did the initial stream they said points changes would be tied to their performance in the new edition. Time will tell if they managed to get close or not.
I'm pretty confident that 9th will not be balanced out of the gate. Changing points for every single unit without the feedback of the entire community will result in imbalances. These will get corrected eventually but not for awhile. 8th has had points changed constantly to try and get as close to balanced as possible, so it's unlikely that GW and their playtesters have played enough games with enough variables to properly cost every unit in the game. Impossible.
It would be prudent to expect this outcome initially, and have a little patience for that first change. It will be interesting to see which new unit(s) will be the "king" of early 9th edition.
Ice_can wrote: None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
Well given GW's approach to everything is always "change the entire system without thinking through how this impacts individual units", it wouldn't be the first time.
When they did the initial stream they said points changes would be tied to their performance in the new edition. Time will tell if they managed to get close or not.
I wonder how good cultists performed to warrant a 50 % increase and intercissors to just warant a 17 % even though we all know that the same rules as now apply to them.
or did they pull the same as last time with their initial testers beeing forced to play predetermined lists?
Ice_can wrote: None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
Well given GW's approach to everything is always "change the entire system without thinking through how this impacts individual units", it wouldn't be the first time.
When they did the initial stream they said points changes would be tied to their performance in the new edition. Time will tell if they managed to get close or not.
I wonder how good cultists performed to warrant a 50 % increase and intercissors to just warant a 17 % even though we all know that the same rules as now apply to them.
or did they pull the same as last time with their initial testers beeing forced to play predetermined lists?
Based on the fact they both jumped 20 points for a MSU, the points changes may be more unit based than model base.
As mentioned elsewhere, just being a model physically present on the board is of benefit, whether your squishy or tough.
Cultists and other cheapo chaffe are either charge blockers, or backfield objective campers. Both uses have an impact on the battle beyond their kill ratio. For instance, whether they’re 3pts or 6pts each, they can still prevent something big and nasty getting to your more useful units. Whether they’re 2pts or 6pts, they can still bag you VPs just for sitting around picking their noses on an objective.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As mentioned elsewhere, just being a model physically present on the board is of benefit, whether your squishy or tough.
Cultists and other cheapo chaffe are either charge blockers, or backfield objective campers. Both uses have an impact on the battle beyond their kill ratio. For instance, whether they’re 3pts or 6pts each, they can still prevent something big and nasty getting to your more useful units. Whether they’re 2pts or 6pts, they can still bag you VPs just for sitting around picking their noses on an objective.
They also fill troops slots cheaply allowing for more points to be aimed at the good stuff for CSM while not losing CP to non-core detachments, and them taking actions to score is less of a negative as it is for CSM or something like Chaos Terminators to do so.
Ice_can wrote: None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
Well given GW's approach to everything is always "change the entire system without thinking through how this impacts individual units", it wouldn't be the first time.
When they did the initial stream they said points changes would be tied to their performance in the new edition. Time will tell if they managed to get close or not.
I wonder how good cultists performed to warrant a 50 % increase and intercissors to just warant a 17 % even though we all know that the same rules as now apply to them.
or did they pull the same as last time with their initial testers beeing forced to play predetermined lists?
Based on the fact they both jumped 20 points for a MSU, the points changes may be more unit based than model base.
greyknight12 wrote: Or you can be an optimist and assume that everything was rebalanced, just around a higher points baseline.
Being realistic, neither them nor us can foresee what impact a change of this magnitude will have on every unit in the game. It will take them at least a couple of iterations to get it right.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As mentioned elsewhere, just being a model physically present on the board is of benefit, whether your squishy or tough.
Cultists and other cheapo chaffe are either charge blockers, or backfield objective campers. Both uses have an impact on the battle beyond their kill ratio. For instance, whether they’re 3pts or 6pts each, they can still prevent something big and nasty getting to your more useful units. Whether they’re 2pts or 6pts, they can still bag you VPs just for sitting around picking their noses on an objective.
They also fill troops slots cheaply allowing for more points to be aimed at the good stuff for CSM while not losing CP to non-core detachments, and them taking actions to score is less of a negative as it is for CSM or something like Chaos Terminators to do so.
Spending points on units just to fill out slots kind of kills the whole "you can just play the cool models you like" narrative they're selling doesn't it? Csm players spend points for "regular dudes" to fill their slots, loyalist players spend points for seven and a half foot transhuman killing machines to fill theirs. And the regular dudes are getting a more punitive price hike. Yeah, sounds fair.
Ice_can wrote: None of which makes any sense or lines up with the 17% on intercessors and 50% on cultists so Not even sure GW knows what the points changes Realy are or mean.
Well given GW's approach to everything is always "change the entire system without thinking through how this impacts individual units", it wouldn't be the first time.
When they did the initial stream they said points changes would be tied to their performance in the new edition. Time will tell if they managed to get close or not.
I wonder how good cultists performed to warrant a 50 % increase and intercissors to just warant a 17 % even though we all know that the same rules as now apply to them.
or did they pull the same as last time with their initial testers beeing forced to play predetermined lists?
Based on the fact they both jumped 20 points for a MSU, the points changes may be more unit based than model base.
greyknight12 wrote: Or you can be an optimist and assume that everything was rebalanced, just around a higher points baseline.
Being realistic, neither them nor us can foresee what impact a change of this magnitude will have on every unit in the game. It will take them at least a couple of iterations to get it right.
I do hope the larger playtesting group means they got closer than they did in 8th.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As mentioned elsewhere, just being a model physically present on the board is of benefit, whether your squishy or tough.
Cultists and other cheapo chaffe are either charge blockers, or backfield objective campers. Both uses have an impact on the battle beyond their kill ratio. For instance, whether they’re 3pts or 6pts each, they can still prevent something big and nasty getting to your more useful units. Whether they’re 2pts or 6pts, they can still bag you VPs just for sitting around picking their noses on an objective.
They also fill troops slots cheaply allowing for more points to be aimed at the good stuff for CSM while not losing CP to non-core detachments, and them taking actions to score is less of a negative as it is for CSM or something like Chaos Terminators to do so.
Spending points on units just to fill out slots kind of kills the whole "you can just play the cool models you like" narrative they're selling doesn't it? Csm players spend points for "regular dudes" to fill their slots, loyalist players spend points for seven and a half foot transhuman killing machines to fill theirs. And the regular dudes are getting a more punitive price hike. Yeah, sounds fair.
There is always the conspiratorial option that they're trying to phase out Cultists since they never got a full kit and the points hike is just another nail in the coffin.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As mentioned elsewhere, just being a model physically present on the board is of benefit, whether your squishy or tough.
Cultists and other cheapo chaffe are either charge blockers, or backfield objective campers. Both uses have an impact on the battle beyond their kill ratio. For instance, whether they’re 3pts or 6pts each, they can still prevent something big and nasty getting to your more useful units. Whether they’re 2pts or 6pts, they can still bag you VPs just for sitting around picking their noses on an objective.
They also fill troops slots cheaply allowing for more points to be aimed at the good stuff for CSM while not losing CP to non-core detachments, and them taking actions to score is less of a negative as it is for CSM or something like Chaos Terminators to do so.
Spending points on units just to fill out slots kind of kills the whole "you can just play the cool models you like" narrative they're selling doesn't it? Csm players spend points for "regular dudes" to fill their slots, loyalist players spend points for seven and a half foot transhuman killing machines to fill theirs. And the regular dudes are getting a more punitive price hike. Yeah, sounds fair.
There is always the conspiratorial option that they're trying to phase out Cultists since they never got a full kit and the points hike is just another nail in the coffin.
If that were their goal it would be better served by making csm a better option than they currently are.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As mentioned elsewhere, just being a model physically present on the board is of benefit, whether your squishy or tough.
Cultists and other cheapo chaffe are either charge blockers, or backfield objective campers. Both uses have an impact on the battle beyond their kill ratio. For instance, whether they’re 3pts or 6pts each, they can still prevent something big and nasty getting to your more useful units. Whether they’re 2pts or 6pts, they can still bag you VPs just for sitting around picking their noses on an objective.
They also fill troops slots cheaply allowing for more points to be aimed at the good stuff for CSM while not losing CP to non-core detachments, and them taking actions to score is less of a negative as it is for CSM or something like Chaos Terminators to do so.
Spending points on units just to fill out slots kind of kills the whole "you can just play the cool models you like" narrative they're selling doesn't it? Csm players spend points for "regular dudes" to fill their slots, loyalist players spend points for seven and a half foot transhuman killing machines to fill theirs. And the regular dudes are getting a more punitive price hike. Yeah, sounds fair.
There is always the conspiratorial option that they're trying to phase out Cultists since they never got a full kit and the points hike is just another nail in the coffin.
If that were their goal it would be better served by making csm a better option than they currently are.
They wouldn't be the good guys' punching bag then!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well the next update is about to go live, so I guess we'll find out what fresh hell we'll all be arguing about today in a few mins.
If there was ever a quote that summed up dakka, it's this one
I hate to say it, but I'm cautiously optimistic for 9th. At the bare minimum, having so many rules baked into our codexes at least means we're not going to have to deal with as much shenanigans as the previous editions did where rules like fleet or zealot completely changed how units worked overnight.
Well see how misplaced that optimism is of course. Not everything in 2020 can suck... Right?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well the next update is about to go live, so I guess we'll find out what fresh hell we'll all be arguing about today in a few mins.
If there was ever a quote that summed up dakka, it's this one
I hate to say it, but I'm cautiously optimistic for 9th. At the bare minimum, having so many rules baked into our codexes at least means we're not going to have to deal with as much shenanigans as the previous editions did where rules like fleet or zealot completely changed how units worked overnight.
Well see how misplaced that optimism is of course. Not everything in 2020 can suck... Right?
To be honest, so am I, a lot of the core changes they've talked about so far seem pretty good. The worry is more on the details, and how certain armies are going to get effected by all of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well that stream was a complete waste of time.
- the studio has discussed the matter, and worked to codify to sizes properly; taking into account Kill Team (sub-500PTs) and Apocalypse (post-3000PTs) as well.
- more plans for Kill Team in the future.
- in the past, the studio wrote missions that "worked" for whatever size game you were playing; with this edition, they've tried to tailor the experiences more around specific point values this time around. Each size generally looks at "different" aspects of war in the Warhammer 40,000 Universe, but they are still representative of that core experience.
- game sizes are; Combat Patrol (500PTs), Incursion (1000PTs), Strike Force (2000PTs), Onslaught (3000PTs).
- there's a roughly expected length of time for each size, however it varies on a case-by-case basis. As examples, Combat Patrol is about 1hr, Incursion 2hrs, Strike Force 3hrs, Onslaught 4hrs.
- ultimately, the aim was to make the new rules accessible for both new and old players, and avoid leaving people in "daunting" situations; i.e. feeling they have to spend a year painting a 2000PTs army if the player ever wants to play with other people. Removing the barriers, in effect.
- "minimum-size boards" are mentioned in the rulebooks - it doesn't strictly matter what size you're playing on if you keep above those minimums.
- everything (stratgems, Command Points, etc) scales a little more smoothly with different game sizes this edition.
- the internet has over-analysed the changes, and done so incorrectly. As an example, Stu's Space Marine army has lost a total of one squad from the entire army due to the new point changes.
- 2000PTs will likely remain "the main stay" of the community, but Stu is hopeful we'll start seeing more 1000PTs events moving forward; less time-consuming to start, and more enticing to new players.
- you can still play games at other points values; the new system doesn't lock you out of playing 1500PTs, 1750PTs (like a weirdo - Joe), etc. The Inquisition won't boot in your door and tell you you're player 40k wrong.
- Stu's favourite changes; accessibility for new people and the opportunity to start armies he wouldn't have in the past, as previous editions the game wasn't really designed in mind with people that wanted to play smaller games.
Tune in tomorrow where they describe how the first part of the shooting phase - selecting targets - works in 9th Ed. The rest of the shooting phase will be discussed once a week over the next month.
the internet has over-analysed the changes, and done so incorrectly.
Gasp. Shock.
2000PTs will likely remain "the main stay" of the community, but Stu is hopeful we'll start seeing more 1000PTs events moving forward; less time-consuming to start, and more enticing to new players.
you can still play games at other points values; the new system doesn't lock you out of playing 1500PTs, 1750PTs (like a weirdo - Joe), etc. The Inquisition won't boot in your door and tell you you're player 40k wrong.
Sadly, they're going to need to take the lead on both of these (1000 and 1500). The 'community' is likely to just complain that GW is 'forcing' them to play larger point value games.
Heard a lot of that before- 'GW pushed 2000 point games on people' rather than 1500 or 1750 by not suggesting anything.
So, I have listened to the today's video Twitch stream, and there have not been much previewed.
The design team wanted to make the game more accessible. Get rid of entry barriers.
A select number of missions will be available for different game sizes.
They put recommanded minimum board sizes for each game type.
All measurements will be made from middle of the board.
The Combat Patrol missions will match the small kill team board.
The team wanted to give an idea of game durations :
combat patrol (500 points) - >1 h
incursion (1000 points) - > 2 h
strike force (2000 points) - > 3h
onslaught (3000 points) - > 4h.
They wanted to insure stratagem importance scale with the game size, thus given the command points table.
Stu' Black said about internet comments, that people overestimate the point cost readjustments.
Is 3000 points the old 2000 points ? - > No.
They are hopeful we will see more 1000 points cost event in the new edition.
But people can absolutely continue to still play 1750 points if they want.
Common language and common structure are the key.
Best change about game sizes ? - > Add more fresh people to the hobby.
Give opportunities to start new projects, new armies. and play them while they are not completed, something you were not able to do before.
-------------------------
So that's it for today.
Next week will continue to have a daily video like these.
Well to be fair, we don't know the final cost of Intercessors, only that the base cost has gone back to 20pts. Their main weapon options could have been changed just as substantially as Cultists for the same reason.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Tune in tomorrow where they describe how the first part of the shooting phase - selecting targets - works in 9th Ed. The rest of the shooting phase will be discussed once a week over the next month.
Ravajaxe wrote: So, I have listened to the today's video Twitch stream, and there have not been much previewed.
The design team wanted to make the game more accessible. Get rid of entry barriers.
A select number of missions will be available for different game sizes.
They put recommanded minimum board sizes for each game type.
All measurements will be made from middle of the board.
The Combat Patrol missions will match the small kill team board.
The team wanted to give an idea of game durations :
combat patrol (500 points) - >1 h
incursion (1000 points) - > 2 h
strike force (2000 points) - > 3h
onslaught (3000 points) - > 4h.
They wanted to insure stratagem importance scale with the game size, thus given the command points table.
Stu' Black said about internet comments, that people overestimate the point cost readjustments.
Is 3000 points the old 2000 points ? - > No.
They are hopeful we will see more 1000 points cost event in the new edition.
But people can absolutely continue to still play 1750 points if they want.
Common language and common structure are the key.
Best change about game sizes ? - > Add more fresh people to the hobby.
Give opportunities to start new projects, new armies. and play them while they are not completed, something you were not able to do before.
-------------------------
So that's it for today.
Next week will continue to have a daily video like these.
Just as clarification, I believe they said that 500 points (patrol) would be played on 2 kill team boards side by side (so the boards in Moon Base Klasius would support 2 patrol games).
Well to be fair, we don't know the final cost of Intercessors, only that the base cost has gone back to 20pts. Their main weapon options could have been changed just as substantially as Cultists for the same reason.
True.
We can guess armies are going to lose a squad of Space Marines though, so about ~200pts of a current 2k army I guess?
Ravajaxe wrote: So, I have listened to the today's video Twitch stream, and there have not been much previewed.
The design team wanted to make the game more accessible. Get rid of entry barriers.
A select number of missions will be available for different game sizes.
They put recommanded minimum board sizes for each game type.
All measurements will be made from middle of the board.
The Combat Patrol missions will match the small kill team board.
The team wanted to give an idea of game durations :
combat patrol (500 points) - >1 h
incursion (1000 points) - > 2 h
strike force (2000 points) - > 3h
onslaught (3000 points) - > 4h.
They wanted to insure stratagem importance scale with the game size, thus given the command points table.
Stu' Black said about internet comments, that people overestimate the point cost readjustments.
Is 3000 points the old 2000 points ? - > No.
They are hopeful we will see more 1000 points cost event in the new edition.
But people can absolutely continue to still play 1750 points if they want.
Common language and common structure are the key.
Best change about game sizes ? - > Add more fresh people to the hobby.
Give opportunities to start new projects, new armies. and play them while they are not completed, something you were not able to do before.
-------------------------
So that's it for today.
Next week will continue to have a daily video like these.
Just as clarification, I believe they said that 500 points (patrol) would be played on 2 kill team boards side by side (so the boards in Moon Base Klasius would support 2 patrol games).
That they did, but that's just it's minimum size. You can play it on any size table you want, but a 2x4 is the smallest size.
Well to be fair, we don't know the final cost of Intercessors, only that the base cost has gone back to 20pts. Their main weapon options could have been changed just as substantially as Cultists for the same reason.
True.
We can guess armies are going to lose a squad of Space Marines though, so about ~200pts of a current 2k army I guess?
Minimum for a Squad if Intercessors is 85 points in 8th edition terms and that's chumpchange to the 60+% win ratio almost everyone else is going to have to make some serious gains out of these changes to have a chance against Marines.
Well to be fair, we don't know the final cost of Intercessors, only that the base cost has gone back to 20pts. Their main weapon options could have been changed just as substantially as Cultists for the same reason.
True.
We can guess armies are going to lose a squad of Space Marines though, so about ~200pts of a current 2k army I guess?
200 points of a marine army. Doesn't mean that other factions will have the same change. Some could lose more. Some could lose less.
Well to be fair, we don't know the final cost of Intercessors, only that the base cost has gone back to 20pts. Their main weapon options could have been changed just as substantially as Cultists for the same reason.
True.
We can guess armies are going to lose a squad of Space Marines though, so about ~200pts of a current 2k army I guess?
Minimum for a Squad if Intercessors is 85 points in 8th edition terms and that's chumpchange to the 60+% win ratio almost everyone else is going to have to make some serious gains out of these changes to have a chance against Marines.
When Stu said "squad" I was thinking "full squad" but you're right, it might be smaller than that.
greyknight12 wrote: Or you can be an optimist and assume that everything was rebalanced, just around a higher points baseline.
They've been fething it up for 30 years but this time will be different
Oh it's been working as intended for 30 years. Its not balanced because that's how gw prefers it
I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.
And even then people would complain it's not balanced.
GW has had balance issues in the past *COUGHWRAITHKNIGHTCOUGH* that were based on selling models, but on the whole the designers have been trying to get the game as balanced as possible while allowing for far more options everywhere.
Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.
And, presumably, you can show evidence of this, yes?
ClockworkZion wrote: Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.
Ah, there's the classic strawman: "perfect balance". Perfect balance is impossible, but at the same time, there are so many glaring holes in 40K that it's obvious what needs to be done.
Because they sell products in that size! What other reason could their possibly be besides that?
ClockworkZion wrote: Fair enough. In their limited defense, that's what happens when you need to stretch this over 4+ weeks with 5 videos a week.
You're trying to tell me that there isn't enough depth and new stuff in the new 40K to stretch over 4 weeks, so much so that they have to give us these incredibly sparse previews that tell us almost nothing because if they didn't they'd run out of stuff to talk about???
vim_the_good wrote: That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been
Oh if it's minimum that's fine. Just a guideline to let you know how much space you'll need if you deploy that many models then.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.
And, presumably, you can show evidence of this, yes?
ClockworkZion wrote: Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.
Ah, there's the classic strawman: "perfect balance". Perfect balance is impossible, but at the same time, there are so many glaring holes in 40K that it's obvious what needs to be done.
To balance 40k as well as, say Warmachine, we'd need to strip out a lot of that customization. Fixed unit sizes and wargear loadouts so you can better dial in the cost of models and units for every interaction.
And I'm not talking perfect balance. The thing is there isn't even a chance in hell we'd come close to hitting perfect balance in this game. There are too many interactions to do it. Too many options. 8th as at least shown that they're trying to get the game more balanced and while the initial C:SM threw that off (though it got nerfed, we just haven't seen if those nerfs were enough or not) GW seems to be trying to get armies somewhere close to what I've heard called "the fat middle". Hopefully 9th will give armies enough tools to actually hit that more successfully.
vim_the_good wrote: That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been
Of course it does, because they cannot dictate the size of people's tables, as they don't have that level of control (yet!*). But they've added min-sizes that are literally their own map products put together.
Amazing... I'm almost speechless at that.
Citadel Miniatures - Buy All Our Playsets & Toys!™
Latro_ wrote: I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?
seems easy to get the max 15.
What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?
No, it’s progressive like the others so you can keep scoring it. Unlike the primary objective though, it can be scored first turn if you have one of those armies that can DS turn 1, and your opponent is also an idiot.
Because they sell products in that size! What other reason could their possibly be besides that?
ClockworkZion wrote: Fair enough. In their limited defense, that's what happens when you need to stretch this over 4+ weeks with 5 videos a week.
You're trying to tell me that there isn't enough depth and new stuff in the new 40K to stretch over 4 weeks, so much so that they have to give us these incredibly sparse previews that tell us almost nothing because if they didn't they'd run out of stuff to talk about???
Let's be honest, when we saw edition changes from 5th to 6th or 6th to 7th you could fit all the changes on a single sheet of paper. Might need both sides at most. And with how generally they keep speaking about the concepts and the small amount of info we keep seeing I suspect that and the end of the day, the core rule changes will be about the same.
ClockworkZion wrote: To balance 40k as well as, say Warmachine, we'd need to strip out a lot of that customization. Fixed unit sizes and wargear loadouts so you can better dial in the cost of models and units for every interaction.
Restating your argument is not the same as providing evidence for said argument.
You literally said "even AAA competitive vidieo games... don't have perfect balance..." as if said "perfect balance" was the desired end goal.
ClockworkZion wrote: The thing is there isn't even a chance in hell we'd come close to hitting perfect balance in this game. There are too many interactions to do it. Too many options.
And you just did it again!
ClockworkZion wrote: 8th as at least shown that they're trying to get the game more balanced and while the initial C:SM threw that off (though it got nerfed, we just haven't seen if those nerfs were enough or not) GW seems to be trying to get armies somewhere close to what I've heard called "the fat middle". Hopefully 9th will give armies enough tools to actually hit that more successfully.
Latro_ wrote: I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?
seems easy to get the max 15.
What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?
Primary is limited to 15 points per turn in yoir command phase.
75 points can be scored via primary mission objectives if you max score every turn
Secondarys can be scored upto 15 and their is 2 or 3, so maximum score from 3 secondary mission objectives is 45 points.
You can score upto 120 victory points in a game your more likely to score around 60-90 but theoretically (very theroy hammer) it should be possible between both players to score 225 victory points in a game so it keeps the winning and loosing of the game much more in doubt till the game is over.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?
Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.
I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?
Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4
It is recommended MIN size as stated in the article. It is not a rule. It even talks about using 6x4 to play on. There has never been a rule on what size the battle space should be.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?
Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.
I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?
Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4
Yeah was about to say it's pretty close to the size of my dinningroom/kitchen table.
Though most people I know use Game tables at clubs etc which are 6 by4 or larger and arn't likely to be trying to shave a foot off just because.
vim_the_good wrote: That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been
Of course it does, because they cannot dictate the size of people's tables, as they don't have that level of control (yet!*). But they've added min-sizes that are literally their own map products put together.
Amazing... I'm almost speechless at that.
Citadel Miniatures - Buy All Our Playsets & Toys!™
*puts on tinfoil had!
The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).
No tinfoil hat required. They've been upfront for many years that you can be completely self contained in GW's gaming worlds without needing to visit any other FLGS, toy shop or DIY store.
I could never work out whether you loved or hated typing 'HHHHHobby'.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The new table sizes are odd. Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?
Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'. That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.
I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?
Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4
Yeah was about to say it's pretty close to the size of my dinningroom/kitchen table. Though most people I know use Game tables at clubs etc which are 6 by4 or larger and arn't likely to be trying to shave a foot off just because.
Their min sizes have nothing to do with common table sizes. They're literally determined by blocking up the 22"x30" Kill Team set folding maps next to each other in progressive amounts.
But wouldn't a 4x5 be better for melee armies since there's literally less space on the board for the long range guns to hide? This might be one of the ways GW thinks they've buffed melee for 9th..
I wonder if they'll try to push that new size as the tournament standard.
alphaecho wrote: The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).
Would you like to buy this bridge I have. I'll warn you, it is slightly smaller than all the other bridges I have for sale.
You can't actually believe that GW just chose these sizes at random or because it's make to the fit the 'average dining room table'. I mean, what the feth is the 'average' dining room table, anyway?
And, just by PURE COINCIDENCE, GW's own products hit these exact measurements.
This wasn't done for the good of the game or to match some mythical 'average' table. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.
Honestly it's genius. I'd be singing their praises if it was't so diabolical.
alphaecho wrote: I could never work out whether you loved or hated typing 'HHHHHobby'.
First of all, it's HHHobby. You've added too many H's.
Secondly, it's not about loving or hating it. HHHobby is a method of making fun of GW's insistence that they are a hobby, rather than part of a larger hobby.
From "Lost one five-man unit of scots" to "Lost a 10-man Hellblaster squad" is a wide range.
(Mind you, I lean more towards the former, but.)
It also doesn't mention the scale of game he was prepared for. A single squad at 500pts or 3000pts? He said he prefers 1000pts so I'd lean toward that, but again who knows? Sp basically he responds to reactions framed upon vague bad data by providing further vague garbage data.
It's hilarious that they accuse the community for over analyzing, when the fault lies entirely at their own feet for releasing such vague garbage leaks. I'd rather they had said everything is going up in points to change the games scale and not leaked specific points if they weren't expecting people to latch on every word.
This is why I find it hard to play optimist for them. I am all for waiting for the entire picture, but it really does ding their credibility and wreaks of overall incompetence when you willingly choose to leak hot garbage and act as though it is gold. Somebody who wrote the new rules had to think that cut them down strat was good enough to lead with as marketing... that's... troubling. I find it harder and harder to talk folks off the ledge when GW actively provide it's own damning evidence.
I liked 8th quite a bit, despite it's short comings and bloat at the end and I am hopeful for 9th. However it is GW's MO to over compensate. Something is bad? Make it good AND cut it's cost. Something too good? Nerf it into oblivion AND increase it's cost. Personally I feel this was mostly due to releasing patches that were aimed at target dates and in print, which is entirely misguided and outdated, and means they are more pressured to implement change at once. Gotta get it right or its another entire year! The thing I am most excited for is the AP, which I am hoping means they get off their and patch things ASAP rather then letting it run loose for 6 months or more, which in the past has enticed folks to purchase based on bad design and timing, only to risk invalidating their armies later. You remove those feels bad moments and a monolithic conflict of interest when you fix your mistakes sooner rather then later.
Latro_ wrote: I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?
seems easy to get the max 15.
What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?
Primary is limited to 15 points per turn in yoir command phase.
75 points can be scored via primary mission objectives if you max score every turn
Secondarys can be scored upto 15 and their is 2 or 3, so maximum score from 3 secondary mission objectives is 45 points.
You can score upto 120 victory points in a game your more likely to score around 60-90 but theoretically (very theroy hammer) it should be possible between both players to score 225 victory points in a game so it keeps the winning and loosing of the game much more in doubt till the game is over.
what, how much book keeping is that! so it works:
have 1 obj this turn my primary gets me 5 (one or more)
I have 2 next turn i get 10 (one or more + two or more)
turn 4 i have 1 again i get 5 (one or more)
turn 5 i have 1 and more than my opponent i get 10 (one or more + more than opponent)
turn 6 i have 2 and more than opponent i get 15 (one or more + two or more + more than opponent)
this game i scored 45?
not a fan, plus you know some of them are gonna be in 1's and odd numbers like 3points...
I'm inclined to think the min board size is for people who HAVE Kill Team boards to be able to put multiple boards together to get the table sizes so that those people can use their fancy, expensive GW made tabletop for something other than Kill Team.
People thinking it's GW trying to force us to buy Kill Team boards can now take off their tinfioil hats and go paint some miniatures (or keep them on just in case Big Brother is trying to snatch secrets out of your brain).
ClockworkZion wrote: Don't worry, I'm sure we can buy Citadel brand Laminated Victory Point sheets with special Citadel Brand Marking Pens for tracking our score.
From "Lost one five-man unit of scots" to "Lost a 10-man Hellblaster squad" is a wide range.
(Mind you, I lean more towards the former, but.)
It also doesn't mention the scale of game he was prepared for. A single squad at 500pts or 3000pts? He said he prefers 1000pts so I'd lean toward that, but again who knows? Sp basically he responds to reactions framed upon vague bad data by providing further vague garbage data.
It's hilarious that they accuse the community for over analyzing, when the fault lies entirely at their own feet for releasing such vague garbage leaks. I'd rather they had said everything is going up in points to change the games scale and not leaked specific points if they weren't expecting people to latch on every word.
This is why I find it hard to play optimist for them. I am all for waiting for the entire picture, but it really does ding their credibility and wreaks of overall incompetence when you willingly choose to leak hot garbage and act as though it is gold. Somebody who wrote the new rules had to think that cut them down strat was good enough to lead with as marketing... that's... troubling. I find it harder and harder to talk folks off the ledge when GW actively provide it's own damning evidence.
I liked 8th quite a bit, despite it's short comings and bloat at the end and I am hopeful for 9th. However it is GW's MO to over compensate. Something is bad? Make it good AND cut it's cost. Something too good? Nerf it into oblivion AND increase it's cost. Personally I feel this was mostly due to releasing patches that were aimed at target dates and in print, which is entirely misguided and outdated, and means they are more pressured to implement change at once. Gotta get it right or its another entire year! The thing I am most excited for is the AP, which I am hoping means they get off their and patch things ASAP rather then letting it run loose for 6 months or more, which in the past has enticed folks to purchase based on bad design and timing, only to risk invalidating their armies later. You remove those feels bad moments and a monolithic conflict of interest when you fix your mistakes sooner rather then later.
I don't recognise those game boards from the various Kill Team releases, and they are not from the Moon Base Klaisus set. Is this a new product hidden in plain sight? Those two boards with the depicted terrain would certainly make a good all-in-one terrain starter set for 9th Edition...
Morskul wrote: I don't recognise those game boards from the various Kill Team releases, and they are not from the Moon Base Klaisus set. Is this a new product hidden in plain sight? Those two boards with the depicted terrain would certainly make a good all-in-one terrain starter set for 9th Edition...
I don't recognise them either. They're not from Warcry as there are half-buried pipes and barrels, so they might be from one of the OOP Killzone boxes, or maybe a new set of two (coincidentally 22x30!) boards that have yet to come out.
alphaecho wrote: The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).
Would you like to buy this bridge I have. I'll warn you, it is slightly smaller than all the other bridges I have for sale.
You can't actually believe that GW just chose these sizes at random or because it's make to the fit the 'average dining room table'. I mean, what the feth is the 'average' dining room table, anyway?
And, just by PURE COINCIDENCE, GW's own products hit these exact measurements.
This wasn't done for the good of the game or to match some mythical 'average' table. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.
Honestly it's genius. I'd be singing their praises if it was't so diabolical.
alphaecho wrote: I could never work out whether you loved or hated typing 'HHHHHobby'.
First of all, it's HHHobby. You've added too many H's.
Secondly, it's not about loving or hating it. HHHobby is a method of making fun of GW's insistence that they are a hobby, rather than part of a larger hobby.
When the debuted the maps GW said that the dinning table thing was why it was such a random size, your right it could be marketing BS or it could actually have been a thing.
Its justnone of those odd things I noticed when buying a table that most of them don't hit 6x4 but the GW size they would or atleast be close enough.
For a very long time the table I played on was 3" wide, and it had big half-circle ends. It wasn't great, but we made do. Eventually got a 4x8 piece of wood to go over the top. That was great.
But again, this isn't about making sure games can be played on any mythical "average" dining room table. This is about shifting whatever the miniature equivalent of the Overton Window is to make GW's products the "new normal" for game sizes.
They did it with bases (28mm to 32mm) and now they're doing it here.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?
Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.
I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?
Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4
Yeah was about to say it's pretty close to the size of my dinningroom/kitchen table.
Though most people I know use Game tables at clubs etc which are 6 by4 or larger and arn't likely to be trying to shave a foot off just because.
Why would you shave the tables? Now everyone will have a foot of space to place reserve and/or dead models, as well as books, bags, drinks, nachos, etc.
People aren't going to move away from 6x4 simply because of the number of neoprene mats owned.
Nobody is going to trash them and start over, 6x4 will still be the norm.
alphaecho wrote: The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).
Would you like to buy this bridge I have. I'll warn you, it is slightly smaller than all the other bridges I have for sale.
You can't actually believe that GW just chose these sizes at random or because it's make to the fit the 'average dining room table'. I mean, what the feth is the 'average' dining room table, anyway?
And, just by PURE COINCIDENCE, GW's own products hit these exact measurements.
...or maybe 22x30 boards were chosen in the first place because they fold up to fit neatly into existing standard packaging sizes. Wait that can't be right, everything on the Internet must be a conspiracy instead.
And I'm not talking perfect balance. The thing is there isn't even a chance in hell we'd come close to hitting perfect balance in this game. There are too many interactions to do it. Too many options. 8th as at least shown that they're trying to get the game more balanced and while the initial C:SM threw that off (though it got nerfed, we just haven't seen if those nerfs were enough or not) GW seems to be trying to get armies somewhere close to what I've heard called "the fat middle". Hopefully 9th will give armies enough tools to actually hit that more successfully.
I've always said that game balance is a unicorn. Even putting aside the functionally infinite combinations of moving parts, constant flow of new releases & changes, and unavoidable human bias involved in all decisions there's a still a fundamental problem: no one knows what 'balanced 40k' looks like. There's no consensus what the end destination is.
You'll have an idea. I have an idea. HMBC sure as hell does. But they're not all the same idea, and we'd be incredibly lucky to get even a plurality to agree on the same one, nevermind a majority. At the end of the day 'balanced 40k' is such a subjective concept that anyone claiming it's obvious or in any way simple are just deluding themselves.
Latro_ wrote: I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?
seems easy to get the max 15.
What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?
There are at least two, and probably three, scoring options.
The first is progressive, which you can score each turn. So, in the scenario shown above, in turn 2, if you control an objective, you get five points. If you control one objective in turn 3? 5 more points (10 total). Have one in turn 4? 5 more points. (15 total) and so on. These have a cap of 15 points a turn in the versions shown, so you could get 15 in turn 2, 15 more in turn 3, and so on.
The second that we've seen is End Game, where you score if a certain thing is handled at the end of the game, earning points one time and one time only. For example: at the end of the game, Assassinate gives you 3 victory points for each character model killed. If you killed three characters, that'd be 9 points. None of those yet shown have a cap, like the progressive style/s 15/turn limit.
Those are the two that we've seen.
There might be an "instant" one as well, to get points immediately (for example, destroying an objective marker in games where that's possible) … Slay the Warlord could be one of these or it could be an End Game (Is the enemy Warlord still alive? If the answer is no, gain X victory points.) we don't know for certain if a third category yet exists.
For now, however?
Progressive can be scored each turn.
End Game can be scored a single time.
xttz wrote: ...or maybe 22x30 boards were chosen in the first place because they fold up to fit neatly into existing standard packaging sizes. Wait that can't be right, everything on the Internet must be a conspiracy instead.
Conspiracy theory? That implies underhanded or clandestine. This is right out in the open. There's nothing secretive about it.
And the reasoning behind their choice is likely more mundane than that - manufacturing costs, boxes sizes limitations, shipping methodology. I mean the tiles in Newcromunda are annoying not exactly 1x1, but that's because to make them 1x1 the box would have to be bigger, and GW has set height and length dimensions for boxes that is probably entirely to do with inventory space, international shipping container usage, or both and maybe even more.
So their stuff is the size it is for a bunch of likely really uninteresting reasons... but then they go and make the standard size fit their weird sizes. That's not a conspiracy. It's intentional and right out in the open. And it's genius.
I don't think the goal is to seal GW boards as much as it is to make it easier for new players to have an easier time escalating out of Kill Team and into regular 40k with less stuff on hand.
vim_the_good wrote: That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been
Of course it does, because they cannot dictate the size of people's tables, as they don't have that level of control (yet!*). But they've added min-sizes that are literally their own map products put together.
Amazing... I'm almost speechless at that.
It's pretty neat. That means you can easily get a cool table from your local GW. And since it is explicitly just a minimum size, not a required size, it doesn't invalidate already existing table, or event concurrent products. I like it.
Yea at least it's a scale down. The evil course of action would have been to set the new minimum to 5X7 or some other larger odd size that invalidates other game mats. Now if that ever happens I'd say have at it, but it's a minimum that suddenly legitimizes the smaller boards they already produce and ties kill team into the core game neatly.
If the missions/rules are designed to take smaller table in to account it could be a good thing given there may be changes to communal gaming spaces and perhaps more games will move back to kitchen tables/garages where it can be more challenging to fit a 4x6. That being said, the more room to maneuver on a 4x6 is probably better. Movement distance and. Weapon ranges have ballooned somewhat from when I started back in the Neolithic, so goof that direction could help with board size, but really is neither here nor there given we won’t see those drastic changes in this addition.
If they'd picked minimum sizes of say 24x24" or 36x36" for entry level games, then I'm sure HMBC would instead be furiously posting about GW screwing over Kill Team players by not allowing them to use their existing boards.
I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.
There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.
I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.
Lowering the size of the battle map is a bad thing. It makes movement and positining even less relevant.
The funny thing is, those are the MINIMUN recommended table size. Just under that they talk about using your 6x4 tables. But the general community, I can see it, ITC crow etc... are so up under GW ass that they'll take as gospel the change of size as if it has anything to do with equilibrium or balance. Is just a cinical move because thats what they sell NOW.
Galas wrote: Lowering the size of the battle map is a bad thing. It makes movement and positining even less relevant.
The funny thing is, those are the MINIMUN recommended table size. Just under that they talk about using your 6x4 tables. But the general community, I can see it, ITC crow etc... are so up under GW ass that they'll take as gospel the change of size as if it has anything to do with equilibrium or balance. Is just a cinical move because thats what they sell NOW.
Smaller table, with the quite heavy assumption that movement doesn't change because vigilus + PA + dexes are initially there....
Tell me, what was the point excactly from lowering the model count when we now also lower the space to manouvre again?
There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.
There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.
I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.
They did it by limiting the number of detachments, writing missions sprcific to that game size and limiting CP to lower amounts.
Time will tell how well that works, but there are limits built in to balance the game at smaller points instead of the unregulated free-for-all it'd been for some time.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My problem with the accross the board price points rise is that, as always, it fails to address the actual problems of relative unit costs.
Let's take the worst case scenario based on the information at hand and say that horde units are going to be easier to kill with blast weapons going up buy 50%.
So Cultists, Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks/Gretchin. If there are others I'm forgetting let me know.
So let's look at Gaunts. Termagants are 4 points per model. People take them over Hormagaunts as we know that Hormies are not worth 6 points each.
"But Hormagaunts are 5 points each?"
Find me a Tyranid player alive who doesn't take Adrenal Glands on Hormies. As I said, they're 6 points each.
So say things go up 50%, and Termagants are now worth 6 points each... and H-Gaunts are now 9 each? If they weren't worth it at 6, they're certainly not worth it at 9. Now I'm still bringing Termagants, just less of them.
They haven't increased granularity here. They've just made a unit that wasn't worth its current cost cost more. The net result will just be Tyranid players waiting for an FAQ or new Codex to come out to fix the problem we've been waiting for them to fix and that they made worse with the start of a new edition.
And a new Tyranid Codex means there's a chance that Cruddace might get a third attempt at fething us over again.
a higher base cost for units allows them to make upgrades more desirable. when a base unit cost is 3 or 4 points, very few upgrades are deemed "worth it" because people tend towards boys over toys.
Hmmm, different table sizes endorsed by a company that sells gaming mats? You don't say.
Nah, 6x4 works for me. Don't need to waste time taping off edges. Sorry, just seems arbitrarily silly.
Yea, this is great. A lot of the shops in the U.K. don’t have infinite floor space, so making the official board size smaller is a great change. Hopefully, everything will get balanced around that new concept.
Obviously, people can home brew whatever they want (my table at home was built to 6x4 and I won’t be changing that); but I know of at least one local shop that was struggling to fit more than 6 players at a time (3 games) on just 4x4s, let alone 6x4s.
slave.entity wrote: Smaller tables is great, especially when game stores here in the US get crowded with MtG and other tabletop events.
Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of benefits from this standardization (with a side order of 'absolutely keep those 4 inches if it means that much to you').
In particular, smaller games on smaller tables makes a lot of sense to me, since it avoids obvious problems like corner camped basilisks (or whatever- there are factions with a lot of long range and others with next to none) with a big empty space the enemy has to cross (especially since GW seems to love opposite corner deployment, and there are already deployment shuffling strats)
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.
There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.
I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.
They did it by limiting the number of detachments, writing missions sprcific to that game size and limiting CP to lower amounts.
Time will tell how well that works, but there are limits built in to balance the game at smaller points instead of the unregulated free-for-all it'd been for some time.
Yeah, but none of that addresses the issue really. You can still have combat units that can literally strike any point on the table T1. You still have most ranged firepower able to hit anywhere not covered by LOS-blocking, and most indirect can hit any point on the table.
I mean consider a 500 point list with a patrol of 1 shadowseer, 1 troupe, and 6 skyweavers. Those skyweavers can literally hit any point on the table T1, shoot, charge, then fight twice (you'd be at 1CP at that point, 0 if you gave them a 3++ or spent a CP for +1 to wound). 90% of lists will simply lose to this army T1 if it goes first, with no possible counter-play. It can't be move-blocked. With only 500 points to work with, you're not going to be able to castle to protect your key units. The only counters to this list are abaddon-level counter-charge characters you can protect from the alpha, or lists made up wholly of stuff the skyweavers simply can't touch.
And this isn't even close to the nastiest 500 point list you can come up with in terms of a T1 alpha that cannot be defended against.
On the plus side, they're right that these 500 point games will be fast...10 minutes fast, unless both players deliberately agree not to take competitive armies.
bullyboy wrote: Hmmm, different table sizes endorsed by a company that sells gaming mats? You don't say.
Nah, 6x4 works for me. Don't need to waste time taping off edges. Sorry, just seems arbitrarily silly.
Since it's a minimum size recommendation, there's no need to tape off the edges.
10 old marines on old 25mm bases.
Base area = pi x 12.5 squared. Multiplied by 10 is approx 4900mm squared
10 new marines on 32mm bases.
Base area = pi x 16 squared. Multiplied by 10 is just over 8000mm squared.
So in terms of games, the models are now taking up 1.6 times as much room on the table, and they plan on shrinking the table size?
40k seemed to have limited movement as it was. With all the accumulated changes who knows how it will play.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.
There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.
I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.
They did it by limiting the number of detachments, writing missions sprcific to that game size and limiting CP to lower amounts.
Time will tell how well that works, but there are limits built in to balance the game at smaller points instead of the unregulated free-for-all it'd been for some time.
Yeah, but none of that addresses the issue really. You can still have combat units that can literally strike any point on the table T1. You still have most ranged firepower able to hit anywhere not covered by LOS-blocking, and most indirect can hit any point on the table.
I mean consider a 500 point list with a patrol of 1 shadowseer, 1 troupe, and 6 skyweavers. Those skyweavers can literally hit any point on the table T1, shoot, charge, then fight twice (you'd be at 1CP at that point, 0 if you gave them a 3++ or spent a CP for +1 to wound). 90% of lists will simply lose to this army T1 if it goes first, with no possible counter-play. It can't be move-blocked. With only 500 points to work with, you're not going to be able to castle to protect your key units. The only counters to this list are abaddon-level counter-charge characters you can protect from the alpha, or lists made up wholly of stuff the skyweavers simply can't touch.
And this isn't even close to the nastiest 500 point list you can come up with in terms of a T1 alpha that cannot be defended against.
On the plus side, they're right that these 500 point games will be fast...10 minutes fast, unless both players deliberately agree not to take competitive armies.
I doubt any of this is relevant though. They said the combat patrols are aimed at people starting out and building their collection, not at tournaments or competitive play. It’s at 1000 and 2000pts the competitive game is aimed, with 2000 being the standard and possible some 1000 point competitions.
I’m looking forward to the combat patrol scale. I used to love 40k in 40 minutes back in the day.
So... we are going down in the size of the tables because "games will be smaller promise!"...
And what when GW starts dropping points again? Tables were small now with how many miniatures theres in your typical list and how big are weapon ranges. I really think is a very bad move to change table sizes to a smaller one. But alas.
I don't understand the view here. 6x4 is too big, but 5x3'8" is perfect! I don't see how that will create more space in game stored who already have tables built.
I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.
Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".
Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL
I for one am looking forward to playing moshpit hammer.
Just cram your guys on the table, don't worry everything will be so lethal you will soon be removing them.
They had me excited that this edition would be movement and manouevre driven with things like flag planting and more progressive missions.
And then they shaved a foot off the table and rendered all that utterly pointless.
Dont worry though battlemats in the new sizes coming soon from GW and other outlets
jivardi wrote: I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.
Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".
Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL
Thats what I'm saying. But thats the world we live in now. Only GW approved™ recommendations even when they themselves say you can absolutely still use any 6x4 board because they themselves sell fething 6x4 boards.
Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it
jivardi wrote: I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.
Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".
Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL
Its not about recommended though, its about what becomes the standard. The owner of FLG has said he will be moving to this size and selling mats accordingly. That means ITC games will all follow and watch other companies start selling these mats and possibly replacing 6x4 lines. That seems silly over what has been a standard for so long and didn't really need change. IMHO.
jivardi wrote: I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.
Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".
Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL
You realize that the organizers of the LVO have already said they will be adopting the new size right?
That's just one of the biggest tournaments out there, do you not think other TO's might do the same thing?
Nobody was asking for smaller tables, table size if anything was considered too small, unless you were playing a super elite force.
CoreCommander wrote: Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it
Who knows what GW has in mind. Maybe target priority is coming back.
CoreCommander wrote: Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it
Who knows what GW has in mind. Maybe target priority is coming back.
I miss that rule. Maybe it's just nostalgia,but it would atleast be another use for leadership besides 'more damage'...
bullyboy wrote: I don't understand the view here. 6x4 is too big, but 5x3'8" is perfect! I don't see how that will create more space in game stored who already have tables built.
Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a. The table is nearly 25% smaller.
I think reducing the effect of mobility is counter productive to a tactically interesting game. You can’t ”kite” anything either with your mobility and weapon ranges. It’s a kid’s game where both shove all in and see who draws out.
CoreCommander wrote: Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it
Who knows what GW has in mind. Maybe target priority is coming back.
I miss that rule. Maybe it's just nostalgia,but it would atleast be another use for leadership besides 'more damage'...
They said they were going to push to make Leadership more important, so it's not impossible.
bullyboy wrote: I don't understand the view here. 6x4 is too big, but 5x3'8" is perfect! I don't see how that will create more space in game stored who already have tables built.
12 x 4 area is 2 square feet, mate.
Sorry, trying to understand the point you're making, can you elaborate?
Therion wrote: Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a.
Yep, its by far the most far reaching change to the game.
It also means you can't get out of range of that unit of Dev Centurions that your opponent places front and centre.
Shrinking the space also does damage to the faster armies in the game as they will no longer be able to keep people at arms length.
It's just a terrible change, that will dumb down the game for sure, games will become less tactical and less interesting.
Therion wrote: Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a. The table is nearly 25% smaller.
I think reducing the effect of mobility is counter productive to a tactically interesting game. You can’t ”kite” anything either with your mobility and weapon ranges. It’s a kid’s game where both shove all in and see who draws out.
Well, it would work out ok if they reworked all the ranges and movement abilities and everything to account for the new table sizes. But they have explicitly stated this is not the case. So I agree, it's going to be a mess at first.
There has been such tremendous range and movement creep in the game over the years that we are at a point where even on 6x4 boards it can be very hard to avoid a T1 alpha strike. Reducing the board size in these circumstances without also redoing threat ranges just seems like a really strange decision.
CoreCommander wrote: Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it
Who knows what GW has in mind. Maybe target priority is coming back.
I miss that rule. Maybe it's just nostalgia,but it would atleast be another use for leadership besides 'more damage'...
They said they were going to push to make Leadership more important, so it's not impossible.
Target Priority may have been before my time, but I think it would 100% fix a lot of problems that have been going on with recent editions.
Therion wrote: Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a. The table is nearly 25% smaller.
I think reducing the effect of mobility is counter productive to a tactically interesting game. You can’t ”kite” anything either with your mobility and weapon ranges. It’s a kid’s game where both shove all in and see who draws out.
Well, it would work out ok if they reworked all the ranges and movement abilities and everything to account for the new table sizes. But they have explicitly stated this is not the case. So I agree, it's going to be a mess at first.
There has been such tremendous range and movement creep in the game over the years that we are at a point where even on 6x4 boards it can be very hard to avoid a T1 alpha strike. Reducing the board size in these circumstances without also redoing threat ranges just seems like a really strange decision.
Maybe the dream of a uniform 40K worldwide is dead already. WTC guys influence Europe and keep 6x4, Reece pushes for the mini tables in the US. Different game, different metas, again.
The only reason they put smaller minimun size is because thats what you have mixing kill team GW mats. That the ITC crow has been so fast to adapt it after years and years of going anti-GW is just a show in how much a shill they have become.
Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.
And, presumably, you can show evidence of this, yes?
ClockworkZion wrote: Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.
Ah, there's the classic strawman: "perfect balance". Perfect balance is impossible, but at the same time, there are so many glaring holes in 40K that it's obvious what needs to be done.
To balance 40k as well as, say Warmachine, we'd need to strip out a lot of that customization. Fixed unit sizes and wargear loadouts so you can better dial in the cost of models and units for every interaction.
And I'm not talking perfect balance. The thing is there isn't even a chance in hell we'd come close to hitting perfect balance in this game. There are too many interactions to do it. Too many options. 8th as at least shown that they're trying to get the game more balanced and while the initial C:SM threw that off (though it got nerfed, we just haven't seen if those nerfs were enough or not) GW seems to be trying to get armies somewhere close to what I've heard called "the fat middle". Hopefully 9th will give armies enough tools to actually hit that more successfully.
I've always felt that 40K is a game of TOO MANY CHOICES. Rarely during an edition will I use more than about 40% of the options available to me in my codex. Some units are just plain bad or out dated. Etc.
That's why I like Primaris, each unit has a purpose and you don't have to waste a lot of time trying to find every bit for each unit. 10 bolt rifles. Done. Next!
Acehilator wrote: Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.
Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?
Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.
Acehilator wrote: Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.
Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?
Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.
Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.
A lot of doomsayers are forgetting terrain density and the rules that will come with them. Untill we know how they works, shouldn't we have some caution with our statements?
Acehilator wrote: Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.
Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?
Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.
Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.
I played about 200 games (not hard to keep track since we report every match in sheets) this past year pre-covid, and the majority of those tournament games against some of the best and most active players in the world. I wonder how many actually competitive games Reece played. But nice try bro.
There’s a million different things we can do to make assault more competitive, playing on minitables isn’t one I would have chosen, and based on initial whatsapp discussions I’m not alone.
Therion wrote: Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?
Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.
I don't need to be a tournament player to see how this plays out (nice thinly veiled ad hominem btw, almost well done *slowclap*).
Acehilator wrote: Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.
Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?
Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.
Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.
I don't think this is really accurate. Though they may have had a few tournament players involved in play-testing 9th edition, none of the biggest names were, at least not that I'm aware of.
What needs help is not melee generally but melee without extreme movement options. In 8th melee units are good if they're quick, and bad if they're slow. Cutting four inches off the width doesn't make unmobile combat units any better, but it does make the mobile ones even more able to reach anywhere on the table.
The cutting the length of the table actually has the bigger impact BTW, again because of how it interacts with those extremely quick units. Units with 40"+ threat ranges are not unheard of in 8th edition. With a 6x4 board, you can just about avoid a T1 strike by a unit with a 40 inch threat range; on the new table size, that becomes impossible. But Khorne Bezerkers are useless either way.
Basically the change further overvalues movement on combat units, without actually helping the combat units that need the help.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emicrania wrote: A lot of doomsayers are forgetting terrain density and the rules that will come with them. Untill we know how they works, shouldn't we have some caution with our statements?
Yes and no. The main issue is that the units with these huge threat ranges are almost all fly units, which means they're immune to terrain (except when charging, if they're not also infantry). Unless the new terrain rules start having an impact on fly units, it's unlikely to have much impact on threat ranges.
The basic problem here is that 8th was such a deadly edition when it comes to shooting that melee units were granted huge threat ranges to compensate - threat ranges which almost-but-not-quite cover entire tables. When you reduce the table size, the threat range that was almost-but-not-quite the whole table suddenly becomes the whole table. And that fundamentally changes how you can deal with it.
bullyboy wrote: I don't understand the view here. 6x4 is too big, but 5x3'8" is perfect! I don't see how that will create more space in game stored who already have tables built.
12 x 4 area is 2 square feet, mate.
It's actually 1/3 square foot. 1 ft x 1/3 ft = 1/3 sq ft.
Acehilator wrote: Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.
Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?
Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.
Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.
I played about 200 games (not hard to keep track since we report every match in sheets) this past year pre-covid, and the majority of those tournament games against some of the best and most active players in the world. I wonder how many actually competitive games Reece played. But nice try bro.
There’s a million different things we can do to make assault more competitive, playing on minitables isn’t one I would have chosen, and based on initial whatsapp discussions I’m not alone.
Oh I'm sure you are a big shot with all the important opinions but the point is while we don't know who all the playtesters are, the people establishing rhe ITC like these changes and it seems the community has had more faith in the ITC to alter their game than GW. This is now happening inadvertently or otherwise and suddenly people aren't supporting them any more it seems.
bullyboy wrote: I don't understand the view here. 6x4 is too big, but 5x3'8" is perfect! I don't see how that will create more space in game stored who already have tables built.
12 x 4 area is 2 square feet, mate.
It's actually 1/3 square foot. 1 ft x 1/3 ft = 1/3 sq ft.
That's not how it works. I mean you're right as to the mathematical statement made, but it doesn't reflect the change in table size.
The new board is almost exactly 75% the size of the old board. It went from 3456 square inches to 2640 square inches. That's a loss of a little less than 6 square feet. Quite a large difference.
The only reason the 24” neutral zone (less on central circle) is a problem is due to double move / advance and charge / re-deploy (and similar) shenanigans.
For nearly every movement profile, 24” is enough to make first turn charges only 80% of charge roll results—which is not competitive viable.
That's kinda like saying "the only reason some guns have greater than a 24" shooting range is that they have greater than a 24" shooting range."
I think everybody agrees that it would be possible to rebalance the game for the new board size if you redid all the abilities. The point is that they are explicitly not doing this in the transition to 9th. So we are going to have a game balanced for a 24 square foot board being played on a 18.3 square foot board. And that's going to be a huge impact on how you play the game.
yukishiro1 wrote: If you mean Lawrence, he came 2nd with grey knights at a 50-man tournament IIRC. I wasn't aware he was involved in playtesting 9th, though.
I'm on my phone but I am almost positive that he's part of the Tabletop Tactics group in this video: https://youtu.be/0WYKKUDwxbE
Yeah, that's him. I guess he was involved. I hadn't seen that video before.
edit: Oops, I misssed a couple people in that video initially. They do have some top tournament players. Not the top, top names, but some very good ones.
80
Not even sure 
and patch things ASAP rather then letting it run loose for 6 months or more, which in the past has enticed folks to purchase based on bad design and timing, only to risk invalidating their armies later. You remove those feels bad moments and a monolithic conflict of interest when you fix your mistakes sooner rather then later.
