ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
Given the length of time it takes to get a book to print, that Necron Codex has been finished for a while. PA won't be a beta test.
I disagree. I'm saying there is no Necron codex ready to go, if they've startes it at all.
I'm really curious to hear your reasoning for this.
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
Given the length of time it takes to get a book to print, that Necron Codex has been finished for a while. PA won't be a beta test.
I disagree. I'm saying there is no Necron codex ready to go, if they've startes it at all.
I'm really curious to hear your reasoning for this.
GW these days has a better finger on the pulse of the community and it'd be counter to their current focus to release something like Pariah followed immediately by an updated codex. They may have mistepped in 8th in places but it was usually in response to community response (buffing the previously crap Marines for example).
Besides, they'd make more money from people if they sold the new units in Pariah now, and again later in a codex instead of getting people to not buy Pariah.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a different note this weeks WHC preview mentions:
"It’s going to be another full week here on the Warhammer Community website as we continue to look ahead to the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll be taking a closer look at Vehicles, monstrous creatures, blast weapons and terrain, as well as previewing rules from War of the Spider."
Yes, their excellent pulse on the community definitely explains why they put off plans to increase prices during a global...
Oh, bother.
They're pushing out Pariah now because they don't want to reveal the Necron codex until they're sold people Pariah.
They're already hyping up the rationale for this by saying that codexes this time around aren't so much about gameplay (sound familiar?) and instead are about crusade and fluff and "being a greatest hits of past releases."
At this point, I wouldn't even be surprised if Pariah has necron content you can use in 9th edition that will not be replaced by the Codex and will not be in the Codex, with the explanation that you can buy both to get the full experience, because the Codex is just a greatest hit reel.
New model mean a new codex for necrons, GW just doesn’t release new models without the rules written somewhere. Pariah would have been out for months if not for the pandemic. Necrons will likely be the first new codex of the new edition followed by SM. Then they’ll have an accelerated release schedule just like last edition so we’ll likely see everything updated with 2 years.
Sadly with necrons getting a huge release that means for us chaos players waiting on EC and WE we’ll just have to wait.
I feel like the Necron Codex has to be done at this point. We've seen new units and I can't imagine ALL of them are exclusive to Pariah. Illuminor Szeras getting new rules via the PA book makes sense. But the Silent King, a half a starter set which has at least 4-5 new units, and all the other new goodies coming out would be too much for one book that also has rules for othe factions, as well as lore.
Although, I suppose you could argue the new skitarii units were introduced in their PA book. But that's only 7 units. Three boxes with 2-3 different builds.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yes, their excellent pulse on the community definitely explains why they put off plans to increase prices during a global...
Oh, bother.
They're pushing out Pariah now because they don't want to reveal the Necron codex until they're sold people Pariah.
They're already hyping up the rationale for this by saying that codexes this time around aren't so much about gameplay (sound familiar?) and instead are about crusade and fluff and "being a greatest hits of past releases."
At this point, I wouldn't even be surprised if Pariah has necron content you can use in 9th edition that will not be replaced by the Codex and will not be in the Codex, with the explanation that you can buy both to get the full experience, because the Codex is just a greatest hit reel.
Prices aren't set by the game devs, but go on and cry about something set by the the bean counters and suits while blaming the wrong people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
protonhunter wrote: New model mean a new codex for necrons, GW just doesn’t release new models without the rules written somewhere. Pariah would have been out for months if not for the pandemic. Necrons will likely be the first new codex of the new edition followed by SM. Then they’ll have an accelerated release schedule just like last edition so we’ll likely see everything updated with 2 years.
Sadly with necrons getting a huge release that means for us chaos players waiting on EC and WE we’ll just have to wait.
Ah yes, because new models meant a new codex for Ad Mech...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GaroRobe wrote: I feel like the Necron Codex has to be done at this point. We've seen new units and I can't imagine ALL of them are exclusive to Pariah. Illuminor Szeras getting new rules via the PA book makes sense. But the Silent King, a half a starter set which has at least 4-5 new units, and all the other new goodies coming out would be too much for one book that also has rules for othe factions, as well as lore.
Although, I suppose you could argue the new skitarii units were introduced in their PA book. But that's only 7 units. Three boxes with 2-3 different builds.
Starter box models will be in their box. Pariah could cover the rest.
yukishiro1 wrote: And you think release schedules are set by the game devs and not the bean counters and suits?
Nobody's crying, mate. No need to get upset.
GW has shown that they still follow a dev cycle where the studio works on their own pace on things. There is clearly some level of executive involvement, but considering the lead times on books that seems to be more of which window they slot releases into over pushing hard deadlines or mandating specific armies be updated.
And you clearly don't know what my "upset" sounds like so stop projecting your personal chaffed backside onto others.
I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.
We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.
We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.
You've not provided any proof for your claims. You just stated them first.
Marshal Loss wrote: There isn't a chance in hell that the Necron codex hasn't been started yet.It will be done and ready to go at this stage, without a doubt.
Started was definitely too strong of a statement, but regardless, I don't think it's coming out following the release of 9th. I think what we're going to see is just what they said was coming: Forge World updates and Deathwatch.
IanVanCheese wrote: Dubious about this. It looks like a list of educated guesses and the stats for the Hyperphase reap-blade don't line up with the one they revealed (they showed the statline and it made no mention of a -1 to hit).
If these are true, then a few things:
Gauss reapers are wayyyyy better than flayers. Hell, they're better than Gauss blasters.
Skorptekh destroyers look decent, their viability depends on strats and dynasty traits. Rerolling RP after killing a unit is cool.
Canoptek Stalker (presumably the smaller of the war of the worlds walkers) - not great. Gives an inv save and spreads auras, but without character rule it'll just die super quickly.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for necrons. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.
remember morale is getting changed for 9th, it's possiable that Units that help mitigate moral are gonna be important for everyone.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.
We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.
You've not provided any proof for your claims. You just stated them first.
Point stands, we'll know when they do the unboxing since I've made fairly clear predictions about that cover and what I think is going to happen with Necrons if only because double dipping fits their modus operandi over pissing everyone off by releasing the codex right after they drop Pariah.
IanVanCheese wrote: Dubious about this. It looks like a list of educated guesses and the stats for the Hyperphase reap-blade don't line up with the one they revealed (they showed the statline and it made no mention of a -1 to hit).
If these are true, then a few things:
Gauss reapers are wayyyyy better than flayers. Hell, they're better than Gauss blasters.
Skorptekh destroyers look decent, their viability depends on strats and dynasty traits. Rerolling RP after killing a unit is cool.
Canoptek Stalker (presumably the smaller of the war of the worlds walkers) - not great. Gives an inv save and spreads auras, but without character rule it'll just die super quickly.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for necrons. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.
remember morale is getting changed for 9th, it's possiable that Units that help mitigate moral are gonna be important for everyone.
Generally speaking I'd take "leaks" from /tg/ with salt since they've been known to make stuff up to troll the community.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.
We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.
You've not provided any proof for your claims. You just stated them first.
Point stands, we'll know when they do the unboxing since I've made fairly clear predictions about that cover and what I think is going to happen with Necrons if only because double dipping fits their modus operandi over pissing everyone off by releasing the codex right after they drop Pariah.
That being the cover of the mini rules does not exclude there being a finished codex. I honestly don't feel like that picture looked like a Codex cover.
We've already seen the pictures for the huge release that the Necrons are getting, and while this may be a month or two after 9th there is no way I could see that the codex is not done by now to go with that release.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.
We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.
You've not provided any proof for your claims. You just stated them first.
Point stands, we'll know when they do the unboxing since I've made fairly clear predictions about that cover and what I think is going to happen with Necrons if only because double dipping fits their modus operandi over pissing everyone off by releasing the codex right after they drop Pariah.
That being the cover of the mini rules does not exclude there being a finished codex. I honestly don't feel like that picture looked like a Codex cover.
We've already seen the pictures for the huge release that the Necrons are getting, and while this may be a month or two after 9th there is no way I could see that the codex is not done by now to go with that release.
Fair, but I still doubt we'll be seeing it in the same quarter as the edition release at least. Maybe at the end of the year, but I'm thinking 2021 at the soonest for it and Space Marines.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for necrons. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.
It is if you are playing warrior hordes.
I can see taking the Overseer so you don't have to take Immortal Pride to stop warriors from retreating.
Well the warriors would first need huge buff to be worth it to field :t for the unusual case of them not simply deleted in one go
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
Given the length of time it takes to get a book to print, that Necron Codex has been finished for a while. PA won't be a beta test.
I disagree. I'm saying there is no Necron codex ready to go, if they've startes it at all.
I'm really curious to hear your reasoning for this.
GW these days has a better finger on the pulse of the community and it'd be counter to their current focus to release something like Pariah followed immediately by an updated codex. They may have mistepped in 8th in places but it was usually in response to community response (buffing the previously crap Marines for example).
Besides, they'd make more money from people if they sold the new units in Pariah now, and again later in a codex instead of getting people to not buy Pariah.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a different note this weeks WHC preview mentions:
"It’s going to be another full week here on the Warhammer Community website as we continue to look ahead to the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. We’ll be taking a closer look at Vehicles, monstrous creatures, blast weapons and terrain, as well as previewing rules from War of the Spider."
Lol no they don't. And releasing new codex is just print money. Pariah? Leave that stuff out of codex and players need to buy both
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.
We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.
You've not provided any proof for your claims. You just stated them first.
Point stands, we'll know when they do the unboxing since I've made fairly clear predictions about that cover and what I think is going to happen with Necrons if only because double dipping fits their modus operandi over pissing everyone off by releasing the codex right after they drop Pariah.
That being the cover of the mini rules does not exclude there being a finished codex. I honestly don't feel like that picture looked like a Codex cover.
We've already seen the pictures for the huge release that the Necrons are getting, and while this may be a month or two after 9th there is no way I could see that the codex is not done by now to go with that release.
Fair, but I still doubt we'll be seeing it in the same quarter as the edition release at least. Maybe at the end of the year, but I'm thinking 2021 at the soonest for it and Space Marines.
Theyve shown what 12+ new kits/units, which if they intend to release them soon (I'd guess they do bearing in mind they've shown us them), they aren't packing all that in a mini codex nor in a supplemental release that was supposed to be released before 9th was presumably revealed.
We don't know if this was a Codex Cover a just a booklet that is in the Starter Box
We also don't know yet if there is only one starter box or if single faction release is a thing (so it could be a Box-Art too)
A prediction on the information we have:
Release/Pre-Order is beginn of July (as always) with the 2 Player Box
I guess army boxes with the core models are a thing and released in August
coming either together with the Codex or as a mid release shortly before a Codex
One faction in August, the other one in September
a new CA the same time around (September/October) with updates beyond day 1 Errata
PS: GW prints their books 6 months in advance, so everything that is released until sommer was already done in 2019
Can we stop arguing about whether the codex is finished or not? Literally no one knows haha so this is a really pointless argument. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
We can predict though that it’ll be released a little bit after the starter box, as they’ll want to sell the starter box for a bit first, like they did with Dark Imperium and the DG/C:SM.
Tiberius501 wrote: Can we stop arguing about whether the codex is finished or not? Literally no one knows haha so this is a really pointless argument. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
We can predict though that it’ll be released a little bit after the starter box, as they’ll want to sell the starter box for a bit first, like they did with Dark Imperium and the DG/C:SM.
Tiberius501 wrote: Can we stop arguing about whether the codex is finished or not? Literally no one knows haha so this is a really pointless argument. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
We can predict though that it’ll be released a little bit after the starter box, as they’ll want to sell the starter box for a bit first, like they did with Dark Imperium and the DG/C:SM.
What would you like to argue about instead?
I mean... we could always leave this thread for news haha.
Tiberius501 wrote: Can we stop arguing about whether the codex is finished or not? Literally no one knows haha so this is a really pointless argument. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
We can predict though that it’ll be released a little bit after the starter box, as they’ll want to sell the starter box for a bit first, like they did with Dark Imperium and the DG/C:SM.
What would you like to argue about instead?
I mean... we could always leave this thread for news haha.
Tiberius501 wrote: Can we stop arguing about whether the codex is finished or not? Literally no one knows haha so this is a really pointless argument. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
We can predict though that it’ll be released a little bit after the starter box, as they’ll want to sell the starter box for a bit first, like they did with Dark Imperium and the DG/C:SM.
What would you like to argue about instead?
I mean... we could always leave this thread for news haha.
Delightful idea, lets do that.
Lets remember rule 1 as well everyone, 40k is serious business but that is no excuse to be rude to people.
Tiberius501 wrote: Can we stop arguing about whether the codex is finished or not? Literally no one knows haha so this is a really pointless argument. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
We can predict though that it’ll be released a little bit after the starter box, as they’ll want to sell the starter box for a bit first, like they did with Dark Imperium and the DG/C:SM.
What would you like to argue about instead?
I mean... we could always leave this thread for news haha.
No worries, as soon as the new rules video is up we'll all have something else to type angrily about. So, a little over six hours now. Wonder what today's Knockdown Dakanaut Drag Out will be about.
Pre-Orders for War of the Spider are this coming weekend. 2 weeks after the pre-orders for Engine War.
Based on that, we can expect Pariah to be up for pre-order on the 27th/28th, and then 9th to be 2 weeks after that, on the 11th/12th of July.
Whether or not the new release will have a 2 week pre-order or not remains to be seen.
Wel there was rumour pariah would be 4.7 and then next week 2 week preorder. That sounds feasible. Remember there's 2 AOS armies to be released as well. One(elves) rather big release so that could easily be 2 week release.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: That would fit in perfectly with the time-table that was leaked a few days ago, wouldn't it?
Which means, 9th will be here by the end of July.
Not quite. He's estimating week sooner than previous rumour.
Though it's about that. GW wouldn't put hype this soon started if it was august/september release and there's still bunch of releases so june is too high especially if they don't want to be just 40k for like 2 months. AOS players are waiting for their elves and giants.
tneva82 wrote: Not quite. He's estimating week sooner than previous rumour.
I see. So you are probably right and we'll have one week of AoS/random specialist games in between.
Though it's about that. GW wouldn't put hype this soon started if it was august/september release and there's still bunch of releases so june is too high especially if they don't want to be just 40k for like 2 months. AOS players are waiting for their elves and giants.
It wouldn't be the first time GW hyped something in the recent past and went silent for a month or so afterwards
Didn't the Ts&Cs for the newsletter competition say the prize would ship in july? Assuming that is a copy of the new starter set that suggests a release in july doesn't it? Plus I agree a release date of august or September for 9th is too far out given they revealed it end of May.
Yeah the box is in july so unless the prize also is in advance it speaks strongly of july. Wasn't 8th ed in july as well? June previews, july release.
Pretty much everything points to july so only question is date. And all in all IMO the 25th for in store day seems reasonable. Still 1 PA book to release, likely something for AOS(seems hard to believe they would get nothing until like august-september...) and 2 week preorder is fairly normal for new edition.
Well either way I doubt it's more than week off in any case.
Ragnar69 wrote: Crazy thought: GWs fiscal year is ending, so maybe the push for a pre-order of 9th edition on the 27th of June to offset Corona loses somewhat?
Ragnar69 wrote: Crazy thought: GWs fiscal year is ending, so maybe the push for a pre-order of 9th edition on the 27th of June to offset Corona loses somewhat?
Apart from fiscal year already over the july is fairly common month for big releases anyway. Corona is first time so pretty weird to imagine previous july new editions etc were to set up for this corona virus
Rather july was release month from the get-go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kitane wrote: I bet the missing AoS release before the 9th edition is the Lumineth box.
Very likely. I could see that coming next and solo boxes week after that.
Kitane wrote: I bet the missing AoS release before the 9th edition is the Lumineth box.
Very likely. I could see that coming next and solo boxes week after that.
There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't aware that anyone was teasing me about my backside. Perhaps you meant "chafed?" In any case, I'm sure you're correct that I'm the one losing my cool here.
If you want to think the release schedule and strategy for the new edition of GW's flagship property has been set by developers and not by senior management in the company, you're welcome to do so - and I might have a bridge you're interested in, as well?
Regardless of what you believe there has been no counter-claims that disprove my own.
We'll know on the 11th when they do the ongoing since I firmly believs the leaked cover we saw goes to the Necron mini dex in the box.
You've not provided any proof for your claims. You just stated them first.
Point stands, we'll know when they do the unboxing since I've made fairly clear predictions about that cover and what I think is going to happen with Necrons if only because double dipping fits their modus operandi over pissing everyone off by releasing the codex right after they drop Pariah.
It's entirely possible we get a similar approach to either Sisters or CSM, where:
a) Pariah only has Szeras datasheet & narrative content for Necrons, then they get a brand new codex in the same month
b) Pariah has new rules for Necrons that extend the current codex like Vigilus. Players can either buy the new version of the codex to get all the rules, or buy Pariah to supplement their current codex.
Marshal Loss wrote: There isn't a chance in hell that the Necron codex hasn't been started yet.It will be done and ready to go at this stage, without a doubt.
Started was definitely too strong of a statement, but regardless, I don't think it's coming out following the release of 9th. I think what we're going to see is just what they said was coming: Forge World updates and Deathwatch.
...they've said on stream that we can expect new SM & Necron books following 9th. Both will be out within 3 months of the boxset, just like what happened with 8th. Still not sure why you'd think this would be the case
Honestly, I think they'd instill a lot more confidence and optimism if they previewed some kind of rule that did something to address some of the absolutely bonkers deadliness inherent in the game.
Price hikes being somewhat disproportional on cheap horde units, smaller board size, vehicles shooting into combat, max hits from blasts etc would make a lot more sense if we had a context to know things are going to die a lot less quickly, so the statistical distinction between a cultist and a guardsman or a grot and a cultist would matter a whole lot more than they do now.
As it turns out, my dining room table is just about the recommended min table size for the new missions (go figure, maybe they didn't make that bit up) and my partner and I played a game this weekend. And they've played once or twice but not since the launch of 8th when the game got a whole lot simpler and easier to quickly pick up. A few things I noticed
1) We had 1500 points per side, both playing orks, and we tried to have a 24" no man's land in the middle, and basically stuffed a 10" deployment zone chock full of dudes
2) the most common remark from my partner throughout the game was "Wow, just dead? that quick?" The first time they fired a KMK at my squigbuggy - dead. The first time I shot a min squad of flash gitz at a pair of killa kanz - dead. 5 nobs hop out of a bonebreaka and charge a boyz squad - dead boyz. It was a pretty typical game of 8th, by the end of round 3 it was clear one side was coming out on top (I blame the loss on a trio of KMKs rolling nothing but 5s and 6s for shots two turns in a row) and their remark was that it definitely felt like we had put so much on the table that the rules required a ton of it to just get taken off really quick in order for there to be any kind of game, and both of us had a ton of different abilities to get +1s and reroll 1s and extra shots and the one big defense bonus was "take these 5 dice and get yahtzee on just 6s or your thing dies"
I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.
I can see all these possibilities that would heavily tone down the game and make it actually last the ~5-7 turns that missions seem to still be designed around without one side getting wiped or severely diminished to like 1/4 by turn 3.
But the thing is, none of them have been previewed as anything but vague hints. We have a lot more of a concrete understanding of how things will be getting deadlier than we do about how things will be getting less deadly.
There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.
I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.
They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.
As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.
BrianDavion wrote: if 8th edition is any indication there will be a month or so between faction releases
I can see GW slowing down for 9th.
8th was a bit "reboot" session for GW, same as AoS 2.0 was. In terms of releases the core focus was getting all the armies codex'ed up and up to date in one big go. I can envision that with the codex for 8th edition working in 9th, GW might well slow things down so that updates are bigger. Shifting back a bit to the older pattern of a slower rate, but with bigger changes. Eg the Necron update is clearly going to be pretty huge with not just updates to old models, but big additions to the arm as well with several new units and leaders and perhaps new additions to existing units getting updated models (eg warriors appear to have a new weapon).
Slowing down and doing bigger updates in model terms makes the new codex far more viable to buy for gamers, esp considering some are not that old.
I envision the same for AoS 3.0 as well.
With around 30 Codexes to get through, even 1/month only leaves a relatively small bit of spare space before the launch of 10th edition in July 2023. Since they usually slow down a bit over the summer and sometimes skip a December Codex, the release schedule doesn't have a lot of slack in it.
There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.
I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.
They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.
As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.
You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.
Maybe like an above poster mentioned there's stacking via -1 to hit roll and -1 to BS. I don't know. I'm saying none of these things have been previewed in any kind of concrete fashion, and personally a lot of my frustration is just stemming from the fact that a large amount of my complaints with 8th just boil down to "everything dies way, way too fast, and games take a long time to resolve due to all the dice and measuring but you pretty much make 1-2 decisions total over the course of a game with most of your units".
If I could have a game with the breadth of different rules that you find in 8th, coupled with the number of turns you get to play from Apoc, I'd consider it the best edition of 40k ever made. Honestly couldn't give much of a gak about what the inter-faction balance or whatever is in that edition, space marines could have a 70% competitive winrate if I could play an average game and go til about turn 4-5 before it's clear who the winner will be.
tneva82 wrote: That assumes every faction will get codex in 9th ed but there's plenty of cases in before where you have codex every 2nd or even every 3rd edition.
What they do with all the myriad of Marine Sub faction Codexes and Supplements will be important.
the_scotsman wrote: [
You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.
Leman russ? Not the primarch but tank used by IG.
Sentinel.
GSC in same way.
Tau tanks might also have same issue.
But yeah let's just forget that universal rule and let those be screwed eh?
There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.
I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.
They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.
As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.
You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.
Maybe like an above poster mentioned there's stacking via -1 to hit roll and -1 to BS. I don't know. I'm saying none of these things have been previewed in any kind of concrete fashion, and personally a lot of my frustration is just stemming from the fact that a large amount of my complaints with 8th just boil down to "everything dies way, way too fast, and games take a long time to resolve due to all the dice and measuring but you pretty much make 1-2 decisions total over the course of a game with most of your units".
If I could have a game with the breadth of different rules that you find in 8th, coupled with the number of turns you get to play from Apoc, I'd consider it the best edition of 40k ever made. Honestly couldn't give much of a gak about what the inter-faction balance or whatever is in that edition, space marines could have a 70% competitive winrate if I could play an average game and go til about turn 4-5 before it's clear who the winner will be.
The deadliness of the game definitely needs to come down. It really comes down to how good the new terrain rules are doesn't it? Nothing else they've been bragging about would address the problem.
Mr Morden wrote:
tneva82 wrote: That assumes every faction will get codex in 9th ed but there's plenty of cases in before where you have codex every 2nd or even every 3rd edition.
What they do with all the myriad of Marine Sub faction Codexes and Supplements will be important.
I'm guessing we'll get more, not less. I can feel gw eyeing up mine and other csm players wallets.....
the_scotsman wrote: [
You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.
Leman russ? Not the primarch but tank used by IG.
Sentinel.
GSC in same way.
Tau tanks might also have same issue.
But yeah let's just forget that universal rule and let those be screwed eh?
....So, you just said that penalties to hit would be capped at -1, period.
And then you bring up a bunch of things that are, if memory serves, BS4+.
-1 to hit would put them at BS5+, yes?
Or are we saying the exact same thing here: That -1 to hit ABILITIES would be capped, but maybe -1 to hit from OTHER SOURCES (e.g. terrain, moving with heavy weapons, long range, other potential sources) could cause a BS4+ model to be stacked up to the point where they could be not hitting at all, and they would need a rule then making 6s always hit?
There's also AoS Giants, Warcry, Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus releases to fit in somewhere. Makes me think that some things might be delayed to meet even the July 11th date.
I'm not saying it's not possible they manage it. I can see a situation where lets say theoretically the -1 modifier cap is just from unit abilities, powers and stratagems, and you can stack up mods to hit from other means (which would make sense, given that they've said 6s always hit how would you need that rule in place if you can only ever get -1 to hit). So maybe they have the Obscurement rule from Kill Team/Apoc/Cities of Death for -1 to hit from intervening terrain, and maybe another -1 to hit from shooting over half range ala kill team. Also Morale could be more of a persistent issue, but maybe it provides stat nerfs more than just "more kills" as units get suppressed by enemy fire. And maybe Engagement Range is somewhat more limiting than the current "who can fight" rule, like in Age of Sigmar where you have a Reach stat that is fairly commonly 1", and if you can't Reach you can't fight period, no "second row" rule.
They have repeatedly said it's -1 period.
As for why 6's always hit...there's BS6+ stuff so without that rule the -1 will push them auto miss. Nothing should be auto miss period.
You're really of the opinion that they put in that universal rule for...what, Astropaths? That's literally the only thing with BS6+ that has an actual gun that I can come up with. Genestealers are BS6+ and some other tyranid/daemons stuff but they don't have ranged weapons.
Maybe like an above poster mentioned there's stacking via -1 to hit roll and -1 to BS. I don't know. I'm saying none of these things have been previewed in any kind of concrete fashion, and personally a lot of my frustration is just stemming from the fact that a large amount of my complaints with 8th just boil down to "everything dies way, way too fast, and games take a long time to resolve due to all the dice and measuring but you pretty much make 1-2 decisions total over the course of a game with most of your units".
If I could have a game with the breadth of different rules that you find in 8th, coupled with the number of turns you get to play from Apoc, I'd consider it the best edition of 40k ever made. Honestly couldn't give much of a gak about what the inter-faction balance or whatever is in that edition, space marines could have a 70% competitive winrate if I could play an average game and go til about turn 4-5 before it's clear who the winner will be.
The deadliness of the game definitely needs to come down. It really comes down to how good the new terrain rules are doesn't it? Nothing else they've been bragging about would address the problem.
To give credit where credit is due, a much smaller starting CP pool for the average army and mission rules that commonly require units to give up their psychic/shooting/fight phases to score points are two things that do help.Just not, IMO, that much.
The game I played this weekend was played with no CPs at all, and we had 6 objectives with progressive scoring and the new "raise the flag" rule where to score a point a unit would give up their turn after the movement phase. But we still had moments that garnered a "wait, what?" reaction several times where a shooting unit like a KMK would roll fairly well - not crazy well, but decently - at near max range, at a medium vehicle sitting in cover, and just - kaboom, gone. 6 shots, 4 hits, 2 wounds, no saves, rolled an 8 for damage, welp that's a dead deff dread, it never got to move!
I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th
bullyboy wrote: I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th
Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.
bullyboy wrote: I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th
Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.
Well given it's been the booby prize faction bonus of the edition so far I'd not be against it being worth something now.
bullyboy wrote: I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th
Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.
Well given it's been the booby prize faction bonus of the edition so far I'd not be against it being worth something now.
Pre dev doctrine nerfs IFs were the second strongest marine subfaction. I would think they're not particularly far from dominating the competitive meta right now.
Or are we saying the exact same thing here: That -1 to hit ABILITIES would be capped, but maybe -1 to hit from OTHER SOURCES (e.g. terrain, moving with heavy weapons, long range, other potential sources) could cause a BS4+ model to be stacked up to the point where they could be not hitting at all, and they would need a rule then making 6s always hit?
They did clarify during one of the streams that while dice modifiers would be capped at +/-1 that this would not impact Characteristic modifiers.
I immediately thought, Heavy is going to be changed from "-1 Hit modifier" if the model moved to "Increase the model's BS by 1 (i.e. BS 3+ becomes 4+)". That would preserve that adjustment to accuracy while still allowing units to gain their personal defensive -1 to-hit modifiers.
Kitane wrote: The degradation tables. Monsters and vehicles often degrade to WS6+ and BS6+ on the last bracket.
There even are cases that can't hit at all when close to death.
Yup. There's a Tyranid stratagem for fighting after death, but since they fight on the lowest bracket its decidedly lukewarm for most MC characters.
Ah, fair enough. I had forgotten the degradation tables put many models at BS6+ base.
I suppose that is a possibility. i hope not, as 8th would probably still feel a little deadly if you applied a gamewide -1 to hit to all units all the time.
bullyboy wrote: I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th
Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.
Well given it's been the booby prize faction bonus of the edition so far I'd not be against it being worth something now.
Um, you have seen the Word Bearers and Night Lords faction rules haven't you?
bullyboy wrote: I am curious what the new terrain rules and what "cover" means in 9th. The harlequin release has an ability for a Shadowseer to give "cover" to units within 6" of her. Since most harlequins (barring vehicles and skyweavers) only have a 6+ save and a 4+ invuln, it's a pretty useless bonus.....unless "cover" does something differently in 9th
Yep. I just hope they don't tie EVERYTHING up into cover or armies and units that have "ignore cover" may wind up being a liiiiiittle bit bonkers.
Well given it's been the booby prize faction bonus of the edition so far I'd not be against it being worth something now.
Um, you have seen the Word Bearers and Night Lords faction rules haven't you?
Oh they do compete for bottom of the barrel don't worry. But at least they probably kick in more often even if actually as useless.
Voss wrote: Eh. Why in the world is it mostly dead white space?
Probably so there is room on the box for any logos and the like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So according to Stu, 9th ed work started in late 2018, which means they spent quite some time working on this new edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Core rulebook art:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Better box image from WHC:
No washed out details like on the steam.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
They had one fewer guest than usual, so it may have been filler to cover for the intended content being unavailable. The various technical glitches (e.g. the slide show being out of order), lack of the usual promo posts on Facebook and Twitter and slightly delayed start support that hypothesis.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Different editions with different points costs. 9th will be messing with points quite a bit so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that addressed.
Also the timeline fits with what we know of their regular dev time, so I fail to see how they could be lying here.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
or they pointed the thing for 8th edition because they're adjusting the points for everything when 9th edition hits.
do you ever get tired of being so relentless negative? maybe you should go find a game you actually enjoy? all this hate and bile can't be good for you
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Why? Points are redone for all. Points in book can't be same for both and remember book was made to work with 8ted as well.
Just because rules work w/9th ed in mind doesn't mean points have to be same. That would make them overpriced for 8th
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Different editions with different points costs. 9th will be messing with points quite a bit so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that addressed.
Also the timeline fits with what we know of their regular dev time, so I fail to see how they could be lying here.
They could've messed with those points with the newest Awakening books then instead of what they're attempting in order to make it a partly wasted purchase. It's GW quickly invalidating printed material as per usual for the last couple of editions.
argonak wrote: So, is this likely to Dark Imperium pricing, or Necromunda Dark Uprising pricing?
I have a gut feeling it'll be about 200USD
Yeah, this lines up with the price "leaks" so far.
Yeah, because if the 120GBP prize they had is the actual price, which seems highly likely to me, then the conversion is about 152USD, then give GW they're Obligatory Price Increase(tm), then I figure 200 is a safe bet
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Can you show us on the Primaris Lieutenant where GW touched you? Honestly, try to relax, it's just a game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Different editions with different points costs. 9th will be messing with points quite a bit so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that addressed.
Also the timeline fits with what we know of their regular dev time, so I fail to see how they could be lying here.
They could've messed with those points with the newest Awakening books then instead of what they're attempting in order to make it a partly wasted purchase. It's GW quickly invalidating printed material as per usual for the last couple of editions.
those points are for 8th edition, remember we would have possiably had 4-6 months of play with that stuff if not for corvid. should they have published that stuff and told us "wait for 4 months and we'll get around to putting it online"?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Different editions with different points costs. 9th will be messing with points quite a bit so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that addressed.
Also the timeline fits with what we know of their regular dev time, so I fail to see how they could be lying here.
They could've messed with those points with the newest Awakening books then instead of what they're attempting in order to make it a partly wasted purchase. It's GW quickly invalidating printed material as per usual for the last couple of editions.
So they should release book with invalid point values? Had they put 9th ed points on book it would have been invalid for 8th. You do realize it was released during 8th? It's fairly obvious so i thought all knew it but...
blaktoof wrote: Forgebane released with incorrect points during 8th...it's not unprecedented
Yes. But intentionally putting wrong ones is another thing. He's saying they should put NINTH edition points to book released during EIGHT. ie you could not play with correct points in 8th because GW intentionally(not mistakenly) puts different editions point values there.
blaktoof wrote: Forgebane released with incorrect points during 8th...it's not unprecedented
Yes. But intentionally putting wrong ones is another thing. He's saying they should put NINTH edition points to book released during EIGHT. ie you could not play with correct points in 8th because GW intentionally(not mistakenly) puts different editions point values there.
Not to mention Engine War was likely off to print before 9th was done being playtested knowing the sort of lead time GW's been running.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Different editions with different points costs. 9th will be messing with points quite a bit so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that addressed.
Also the timeline fits with what we know of their regular dev time, so I fail to see how they could be lying here.
They could've messed with those points with the newest Awakening books then instead of what they're attempting in order to make it a partly wasted purchase. It's GW quickly invalidating printed material as per usual for the last couple of editions.
So they should release book with invalid point values? Had they put 9th ed points on book it would have been invalid for 8th. You do realize it was released during 8th? It's fairly obvious so i thought all knew it but...
at this point I think we can conclude slayer-fan just wants something, anything, to complain about
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Stu can say all he wants but it's a lie and we know it just based on them saying the last few Awakening books were written with 9th in mind.
Eh? Started work doesn’t equal finished. They started on 9th late 2018, I.e. 18 months ago. The last few awakening books can be written with 9th in mind based on the progress they’d made in that time. In no way are these 2 statements contradictory.
If that were the case you'd find the AdMech points pretty low with an Intercessor compared to the Calvary or flying guys, so yes they're lying through their teeth.
Different editions with different points costs. 9th will be messing with points quite a bit so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that addressed.
Also the timeline fits with what we know of their regular dev time, so I fail to see how they could be lying here.
They could've messed with those points with the newest Awakening books then instead of what they're attempting in order to make it a partly wasted purchase. It's GW quickly invalidating printed material as per usual for the last couple of editions.
So they should release book with invalid point values? Had they put 9th ed points on book it would have been invalid for 8th. You do realize it was released during 8th? It's fairly obvious so i thought all knew it but...
at this point I think we can conclude slayer-fan just wants something, anything, to complain about
at this point I think we can conclude slayer-fan just wants something, anything, to complain about
it is just that the argument "written with next edition in mind" is a marketing trick to get people to buy a product for the current game
and some people really believe it that "with next edition in min" means something "no update for next edition needed", while in reality it just means "we already knew that a new edition is on the way while writing that book but everyting in it is still made for the current edtion"
at this point I think we can conclude slayer-fan just wants something, anything, to complain about
it is just that the argument "written with next edition in mind" is a marketing trick to get people to buy a product for the current game
and some people really believe it that "with next edition in min" means something "no update for next edition needed", while in reality it just means "we already knew that a new edition is on the way while writing that book but everyting in it is still made for the current edtion"
Better test of claim is does day 1 errata affect the rules besides points.
Hell points are better of having on along with rest of ad mech 9th ed points. Who wants to multiple sources to cross reference anyway?
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd need to go back but I'm almost positive that they said 9th was written with PA in mind and not the other way around.
they also said that they have a crazy idea every 60 seconds and 9th was the possibility to put all those inti the game
but "written with next edition in mind" is nothing new and was used for marketing to sell soon outdated books, as well as an excuse why a faction is not working/balanced, since end of 3rd.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd need to go back but I'm almost positive that they said 9th was written with PA in mind and not the other way around.
they also said that they have a crazy idea every 60 seconds and 9th was the possibility to put all those inti the game
but "written with next edition in mind" is nothing new and was used for marketing to sell soon outdated books, as well as an excuse why a faction is not working/balanced, since end of 3rd.
Written with the past edition in mind presents the claim that they're not going to completely invalidate the books via rules changes like some past editions have. It also means we should see that "foot in both editions but bad at both" nonsense we've seen in the past.
We'll see, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now at least.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd need to go back but I'm almost positive that they said 9th was written with PA in mind and not the other way around.
they also said that they have a crazy idea every 60 seconds and 9th was the possibility to put all those inti the game
but "written with next edition in mind" is nothing new and was used for marketing to sell soon outdated books, as well as an excuse why a faction is not working/balanced, since end of 3rd.
Written with the past edition in mind presents the claim that they're not going to completely invalidate the books via rules changes like some past editions have. It also means we should see that "foot in both editions but bad at both" nonsense we've seen in the past.
We'll see, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now at least.
I fear that will be the problem for factions with older codexes, even with pa and "2" editions. For some, new codexes won't be able to come fast enough.
They also said the 9th edition Codexes will see some (but not all) PA (and Vigilus) material included in the new Codex.
So I assume it'll be similar to the post-Shadowspear Space Marine Codex incorporating some stuff from Vigilus (e.g. Veteran Intercessors, some Bolter strats, etc..), while Vigilus technically remained valid.
So the 9th Edition Marine Codex will almost certainly include some stuff from Faith & Fury, without (it seems) technically invalidating Faith & Fury (aside from the things that are just ported directly over).
Sunny Side Up wrote: They also said the 9th edition Codexes will see some (but not all) PA (and Vigilus) material included in the new Codex.
So I assume it'll be similar to the post-Shadowspear Space Marine Codex incorporating some stuff from Vigilus (e.g. Veteran Intercessors, some Bolter strats, etc..), while Vigilus technically remained valid.
So the 9th Edition Marine Codex will almost certainly include some stuff from Faith & Fury, without (it seems) technically invalidating Faith & Fury (aside from the things that are just ported directly over).
that'd be my guess, my guess would be, marine specificly the strats to make a libby or a chaplain a master of the chapter will be taken in, but they won't bother with the relics.
And above all some of the best stuff will be left out so everybody has inclination to buy PA books still if they didn't have already. Why sell 1 book when you can sell 2?
tneva82 wrote: And above all some of the best stuff will be left out so everybody has inclination to buy PA books still if they didn't have already. Why sell 1 book when you can sell 2?
They said they wanted to keep the best stuff when they updated books, presumably the intent is to discontinue old rules after they update said books and make them no longer legal for matched play at least.
tneva82 wrote: And above all some of the best stuff will be left out so everybody has inclination to buy PA books still if they didn't have already. Why sell 1 book when you can sell 2?
The People that haven't bought PA yet are probably not that competitive that they would really be concerned about missing a good rule or two. And new players will probably never know that they miss something. So I really don't see any conspiracy on GWs side t9 sell more PAs
tneva82 wrote: And above all some of the best stuff will be left out so everybody has inclination to buy PA books still if they didn't have already. Why sell 1 book when you can sell 2?
The People that haven't bought PA yet are probably not that competitive that they would really be concerned about missing a good rule or two. And new players will probably never know that they miss something. So I really don't see any conspiracy on GWs side t9 sell more PAs
You really expect new player to army not hear about book on sale? Especially in GW stores when the staff will be doing market speech...
And this isn't just noob players but any veteran who starts new army. Might be shocking to you but existing players do start new armies and shock horror not everybody buys PA book "just in case" when they release. For me books 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 100% pointless with my current armies. However if I start say blood angels or tyranids I would need to get PA.
There's no harm for GW to keep some stuff out of codex and in separate book to be sold to players.
The big issue with leaving all these legacy rules in play is you end up with the same nonsense that is IF seige breaker centurions with full rerolls, exploding dice and MW output thats insane but GW wont consider in the codex balance yet won't update the errata for as it's just a campaign book. Its a mess of half legit choices, some removed and a bunch of grey area in between.
GW has proven time and time again they struggle to think through all the combos and interactions. If they keep a bunch of legacy supliments valid after 9th edition codex's your going to need more books and errata than 8th and that's already a rediculous amount.
Tanks/monsters can shoot at a unit that's engaged with them @ -1 to hit.
No blast weapons in melee range.
You can declare targets even outside of things you're in combat with, but if you can't kill the unit you're engaged with then you can't shoot the units you declared against who you're not engaged with.
Example: A Leman Russ declares it's flamers against hormagaunts and its battle cannon on something else, if the hormagaunts don't all die then the battle cannon can't shoot the other target.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dreadnoughts, and Deff Dreads were both named as being able to shoot and fight in melee, as were Daemon Engines, so it looks to apply to all vehicles and monsters.
Sounds sensible to me. And as they said, makes Dreadnoughts and Monstrous Creatures pretty scary.
Blogging down Dreads has long been a solid tactic - but now they belt you in the face, and shoot you in the knee, they’re pretty efficient.
Yet, bog them down with the right unit (arguments sake Grots, Conscripts or Cultists) and you’re still forcing them to duff up chaff over more choice units.
Several online BR channels (with one especially that is now known to be a playtester) have said that they 'thought" Codex Space marines 2.0 and Sisters of battle "felt" like 9th edition codexes compared to others. Just the way the armies were organized to encourage mono play. So it's not unrealistic to believe that some of the content of the PA Books was created with 9th in mind.
"You can fight up a floor" was mentioned as a side buff to monsters so it sounds that the rule will (generally) be fight up/down a single floor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Several online BR channels (with one especially that is now known to be a playtester) have said that they 'thought" Codex Space marines 2.0 and Sisters of battle "felt" like 9th edition codexes compared to others. Just the way the armies were organized to encourage mono play. So it's not unrealistic to believe that some of the content of the PA Books was created with 9th in mind.
In mind? Sure. When 9th was finished and ready to be shipped? Not likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Apparently a big 9th ed design element was "how to do we give people meaningful choices to make?"
tneva82 wrote: And above all some of the best stuff will be left out so everybody has inclination to buy PA books still if they didn't have already. Why sell 1 book when you can sell 2?
The People that haven't bought PA yet are probably not that competitive that they would really be concerned about missing a good rule or two. And new players will probably never know that they miss something. So I really don't see any conspiracy on GWs side t9 sell more PAs
You really expect new player to army not hear about book on sale? Especially in GW stores when the staff will be doing market speech...
And this isn't just noob players but any veteran who starts new army. Might be shocking to you but existing players do start new armies and shock horror not everybody buys PA book "just in case" when they release. For me books 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 100% pointless with my current armies. However if I start say blood angels or tyranids I would need to get PA.
There's no harm for GW to keep some stuff out of codex and in separate book to be sold to players.
Not that many people who WOULD buy PA for just the rules actually do buy PA. All of the rules in those books are easily locate-able through things like battlescribe, 1d4chan, reviews, forums, cool guys at your FLGS, etc. I don't have marine PA and I use its rules all the time. It's only people who are 100% sure they're going to get into a heated rules argument at an event and need the actual paper rules to show the TO that actually NEED to buy these books.
Tanks/monsters can shoot at a unit that's engaged with them @ -1 to hit.
No blast weapons in melee range.
You can declare targets even outside of things you're in combat with, but if you can't kill the unit you're engaged with then you can't shoot the units you declared against who you're not engaged with.
Example: A Leman Russ declares it's flamers against hormagaunts and its battle cannon on something else, if the hormagaunts don't all die then the battle cannon can't shoot the other target.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dreadnoughts, and Deff Dreads were both named as being able to shoot and fight in melee, as were Daemon Engines, so it looks to apply to all vehicles and monsters.
Kinda sucks for Mortifiers, even less reason to take the flamers now that them being able to be pistol type is irrelevant.
H.B.M.C. wrote: -1 To Hit for firing Heavy Weapons only applies to infantry now... hmm...
Maybe Forgefiends will be viable?
Certainly can’t see it harming them any.
And taken with the ‘kick combatants in the teeth and still shoot them’ definitely favours the like of Forgefiends. Possibly to the exclusion of Maulerfiends (I think that’s what it’s called?) if nothing else factors in.
- tanks can now shoot into combat. They may engage units within an inch as well. -1 to hit if you're shooting with your Tank/Monster at something you're in combat with. You can't fire blast weapons either.
- reasons for change; as an example, it was frustrating and immersion breaking that a Nurgling could stop a Land Raider firing in combat. Ultimately, for balance and narrative reasons.
- Monsters benefit from the changes to fighting in buildings; e.g. a squad of Guardsman on the first floor is no longer safe from the Hive Tyrant eye-level to them.
- Stu Black; "Tyranids and Imperial Guard will benefit greatly from the new rules. In general, anything that is a mechanised force or able to field plenty of monsters."
- "sticking a model together because it looks great" is less of an issue now. Specialised / general loadouts on models are much more useful.
- the changes should encourage more dynamic / mobile play, as opposed to "WW1 bunkers engaging each other at a distance."
- challenges; changes to terrain make it harder to get a clear view of the battlefield, so units will need to move around more.
- -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy weapon only applies to infantry.
- Stu Black; "with the new CP / Detachments I think we'll see more vehicle/monster-heavy armies as a result."
- Eddie Eccles; "people have rightfully pointed out that the Land Raider (and variants) will benefit greatly from the changes."
H.B.M.C. wrote: Shame they didn't answer any of the questions that were in the comments, like whether infantry in open-topped vehicles will be able to help.
They haven't really been answering many questions lately at all.
ClockworkZion wrote: Terrain density will break up LoS across the table, meaning vehicles will move more.
-1 to hit when moving heavy weapons only applies to Infantry.
Yeah, cause that worked so well for the Ironhands supplement.
Well now everyone has it. Which honestly might bring vehicles back into the game properly again.
Not vehicles in general, just the ones that were already borderline. Look for WAY MORE flyer spam, untouchable annhiliation barges, Wave serpents everywhere, etc. All else equal, Armies with a large vehicle selection like Eldar, guard, and marines will see a massive buff while armies like SoB, Harlies, and Orkz(large selection of vehicles, not that many heavy weapons), will see almost no benefit.
Obviously the rest of the systems inlcuding terrain rules, points bumps, etc, will certainly modulate the impact this change has on the game overall, it is certainly something to be aware of going forward.
ClockworkZion wrote: Terrain density will break up LoS across the table, meaning vehicles will move more.
-1 to hit when moving heavy weapons only applies to Infantry.
Yeah, cause that worked so well for the Ironhands supplement.
Well now everyone has it. Which honestly might bring vehicles back into the game properly again.
Not vehicles in general, just the ones that were already borderline. Look for WAY MORE flyer spam, untouchable annhiliation barges, Wave serpents everywhere, etc. All else equal, Armies with a large vehicle selection like Eldar, guard, and marines will see a massive buff while armies like SoB, Harlies, and Orkz(large selection of vehicles, not that many heavy weapons), will see almost no benefit.
Obviously the rest of the systems inlcuding terrain rules, points bumps, etc, will certainly modulate the impact this change has on the game overall, it is certainly something to be aware of going forward.
With the limit of minuses to hit eldar flyer spam is heavely nerfed. The vehicles that were good, are good with or without the -1 to hit for moving with heavy weapons, but theres a TON of vehicles out there that were trash because of that. Many shooting ork ones, demon engines, many imperial guard ones, etc... nearly everything that had a BS of 4+ or 5+ and heavy weapons.
As a DG player it's great that my Daemon vehicles can move up and fire without needing 5s to hit.
Bit more dissapointed though that my Landraider is still not really viable as the Chaos version is just not dakka enough to remove chaff units that tag it.
Also, will DG have their battleforged rules changed? Now the ignore move and fire penalty is completely useless. Off the top of my head the only infantry heavy Weapon is a reaper autocannon on Terminators.
I'm sure 9th will affect other armies in a similar way
BaconCatBug wrote: So if I am in Engagement Range, only heavy weapons suffer a penalty and not Rapid Fire or Assault weapons?
It would seem so. It seems pretty clear.
Their new rules seem a lot more wordy, almost like a legal document. I guess they took the old "Rules Lawyer" joke seriously this time.
You know, that sound like there could be some use to baal predator or land raider redeemer now. They dont have to worry about being close to the enemy now, shooting the flamers/inferno canon in melee is kinda Brutal...
I appreciate it might change but decimators running around 10" or whatever their move is with a disco lord hitting on 2's just became an interesting option
it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.
yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.
This also makes possible to still make tanks not be able to fire.
I mean, if you touch a battle cannon leman russ, if we assume the battle cannon is a blast weapon and it can't shoot in meele, if you survive the sponsons weapons then you keep it from firing.
It is still possible to tag a vehicle so it doesnt shoot. It just makes it harder, and not "Ah, my single cultists/nurgling base touched your land raider, I'm sorry it becomes useless "
ClockworkZion wrote: Terrain density will break up LoS across the table, meaning vehicles will move more.
-1 to hit when moving heavy weapons only applies to Infantry.
Yeah, cause that worked so well for the Ironhands supplement.
Well now everyone has it. Which honestly might bring vehicles back into the game properly again.
Not vehicles in general, just the ones that were already borderline. Look for WAY MORE flyer spam, untouchable annhiliation barges, Wave serpents everywhere, etc. All else equal, Armies with a large vehicle selection like Eldar, guard, and marines will see a massive buff while armies like SoB, Harlies, and Orkz(large selection of vehicles, not that many heavy weapons), will see almost no benefit.
Obviously the rest of the systems inlcuding terrain rules, points bumps, etc, will certainly modulate the impact this change has on the game overall, it is certainly something to be aware of going forward.
With the limit of minuses to hit eldar flyer spam is heavely nerfed. The vehicles that were good, are good with or without the -1 to hit for moving with heavy weapons, but theres a TON of vehicles out there that were trash because of that. Many shooting ork ones, demon engines, many imperial guard ones, etc... nearly everything that had a BS of 4+ or 5+ and heavy weapons.
Any terrain rules that make movement more valuable and LoS more difficult heavily benefit flyers, so that should help mitigate the loss of -3 for Eldar flyers while also heavily pushing other flyers up. Add in no more penalty to move and shoot and flyers like the StormTalon and StormHawk, who were already only just barely out of competitive contention after the IH nerfs, could become easy 3 ofs for marines.
As for the vehicles that were trash, why would you take them if the vehicles that were good get to ignore -1 to hit when moving as well? There are some cases where it helps prop up a bad vehicle to be in line with other choice, but most of the time it's just moving everything up linearly.
If your army didn't have any good vehicles before, the -1 to hit change will be pretty impactful, but keep in mind that the armies that DID have good vehicles have it now too. So your manticore is better relative to a guardsman now but it's exactly the same as it was versus a Chaplain Dread or an Annhilation Barge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.
yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.
Mortifiers can turn their heavy flamers into pistols. Which does literally nothing now unless they're suddenly not a vehicle.
bullyboy wrote: it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.
yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.
Yeah, it's really surprising no one mentioned it.
So many Admech models or rules lose part of their value due to this change.
New Mars canticle: one half of it is useless
Onager Dunecrawler+Skorpius variants: one useless rule
I would expect their price will reflect them being "less better" than they were before.
Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
@ERJAK you can not compare a unit just to the BEST unit of is type to value is worth. Theres many units that were barely playable, the combos were there, but they just didn't hit the mark to become competitive usable (Even if not the TOP CHOICES of the game) but with this they are helped. The relative power spike to enter into competitive range is better for those units.
Most competitive choices were actually things that ignore penalties or had ways to ignore them, as you pointed out Iron Hands pre nerf, the Eldar Flyers with the Exarc Power to be BS 2+ (Or ignore the -1 to hit, I don't remember), etc...
But when everybody has access to the same, those exceptions become less powerfull comparatively speaking.
ClockworkZion wrote: Terrain density will break up LoS across the table, meaning vehicles will move more.
-1 to hit when moving heavy weapons only applies to Infantry.
Yeah, cause that worked so well for the Ironhands supplement.
Well now everyone has it. Which honestly might bring vehicles back into the game properly again.
Not vehicles in general, just the ones that were already borderline. Look for WAY MORE flyer spam, untouchable annhiliation barges, Wave serpents everywhere, etc. All else equal, Armies with a large vehicle selection like Eldar, guard, and marines will see a massive buff while armies like SoB, Harlies, and Orkz(large selection of vehicles, not that many heavy weapons), will see almost no benefit.
Obviously the rest of the systems inlcuding terrain rules, points bumps, etc, will certainly modulate the impact this change has on the game overall, it is certainly something to be aware of going forward.
With the limit of minuses to hit eldar flyer spam is heavely nerfed. The vehicles that were good, are good with or without the -1 to hit for moving with heavy weapons, but theres a TON of vehicles out there that were trash because of that. Many shooting ork ones, demon engines, many imperial guard ones, etc... nearly everything that had a BS of 4+ or 5+ and heavy weapons.
Any terrain rules that make movement more valuable and LoS more difficult heavily benefit flyers, so that should help mitigate the loss of -3 for Eldar flyers while also heavily pushing other flyers up. Add in no more penalty to move and shoot and flyers like the StormTalon and StormHawk, who were already only just barely out of competitive contention after the IH nerfs, could become easy 3 ofs for marines.
As for the vehicles that were trash, why would you take them if the vehicles that were good get to ignore -1 to hit when moving as well? There are some cases where it helps prop up a bad vehicle to be in line with other choice, but most of the time it's just moving everything up linearly.
If your army didn't have any good vehicles before, the -1 to hit change will be pretty impactful, but keep in mind that the armies that DID have good vehicles have it now too. So your manticore is better relative to a guardsman now but it's exactly the same as it was versus a Chaplain Dread or an Annhilation Barge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.
yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.
Mortifiers can turn their heavy flamers into pistols. Which does literally nothing now unless they're suddenly not a vehicle.
Sure but that is all assumptions made based on the current edition, we already know things like PotMS are going to have to change day one, therefore we already know there's going to be a significant change in how a lot of vehicles function.
Even stuff that doesn't get hit by the Day 1 errata will probably be tweaked when their given codex comes out.
bullyboy wrote: it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.
yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.
Yeah, it's really surprising no one mentioned it.
So many Admech models or rules lose part of their value due to this change.
New Mars canticle: one half of it is useless
Onager Dunecrawler+Skorpius variants: one useless rule
I would expect their price will reflect them being "less better" than they were before.
Or that's one of the rules that doesn't make it or gets tweaked, no reason to assume it's set in stone. They already said they're more taking a "best-of" approach to PA stuff rather than a set-in-stone port.
bullyboy wrote: it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.
yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.
Redeemer seems genuinely scary if use aggressively? Not only is it packing a squad of whatever, but it’s perfectly capable of wading in itself.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Earthshakers are likely blast weapons. Actually, I think most of the weapons you mentioned will be declared blast weapons which can -not- shoot into melee.
ERJAK wrote: ... while armies like SoB... will see almost no benefit.
You don't think Sisters benefit from this? Immolators can keep firing even when engaged in combat.
Makes the Immolator better if nothing else.
Which would be great if the immolator wasn't absolute trash regardless of being -1 to hit or not. An extra 16% chance to hit it's whopping TWO melta shots isn't going to fix the thing being about massively overpriced. And being able to fire in combat would be amazing if it wasn't already a nearly 150 point steaming crater by the time that ability would actually come up (Shoot, charge, survive the fight phase, opponent doesn't back out, survive another fight phaste, shoot. Or the other option 'get shot up by all these not -1 to hit tanks, eat a charge, miraculously not die in fight phase, shoot, die in next fight phase.). No one took immos before, this will not change that unless dominions are allowed to scout again.
Also, if H.B.M.C.'s reading comprehension was better, he would have realized I said it would benefit armies with more vehicles MORE than armies like Sisters that only have a small handful of vehilces(thus seeing a very small benefit which would technically lead to a net nerf). Not that they wouldn't benefit at all.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm wondering if Power of the Machine Spirit might get changed to no penalty for shooting heavy weapons into melee.
And I wonder how Grinding Advance will work for Leman Russes.
I think it might almost make more sense that they can fire out of combat. The crew handles the swarming combatants but the Machine Spirit focuses on it's goal. Could definitely reinforce units like Land Raiders being "spearhead" units.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Nope, they specifically said in the stream that blast weapons could not be used.
THis next part is assumption, but I am guessing blast weapons will get a min range value since they are not mentioned in that rule.
ERJAK wrote: ... while armies like SoB... will see almost no benefit.
You don't think Sisters benefit from this? Immolators can keep firing even when engaged in combat.
Makes the Immolator better if nothing else.
Which would be great if the immolator wasn't absolute trash regardless of being -1 to hit or not. An extra 16% chance to hit it's whopping TWO melta shots isn't going to fix the thing being about massively overpriced.
Also, if H.B.M.C.'s reading comprehension was better, he would have realized I said it would benefit armies with more vehicles MORE than armies like Sisters that only have a small handful of vehilces. Not that they wouldn't benefit at all.
Take the Heavy Flamer or the Heavy Bolter version then. Why would you mention the melta one out of three options, two of which are better?
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Those big guns are most likely going to be blast weapons, which they state will not be able to fire. (Unless I read it wrong) Also, I am sure anything with a minimum range won't be able to be fired... under the minimum range...
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm wondering if Power of the Machine Spirit might get changed to no penalty for shooting heavy weapons into melee.
And I wonder how Grinding Advance will work for Leman Russes.
I think it might almost make more sense that they can fire out of combat. The crew handles the swarming combatants but the Machine Spirit focuses on it's goal. Could definitely reinforce units like Land Raiders being "spearhead" units.
Just supposition, not based on anything.
I could see that, but IIRC all the weapons are Machine Spirit controlled.
At least I think they are based on Rynn's Might and it's Ork killing escapade.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Those big guns are most likely going to be blast weapons, which they state will not be able to fire. (Unless I read it wrong) Also, I am sure anything with a minimum range won't be able to be fired... under the minimum range...
Ok, then a leman russ can fire its battle cannon against a unit of grots in engagement range ?
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Those big guns are most likely going to be blast weapons, which they state will not be able to fire. (Unless I read it wrong) Also, I am sure anything with a minimum range won't be able to be fired... under the minimum range...
Ok, then a leman russ can fire its battle cannon against a unit of grots in engagement range ?
They -specifically- mentioned the Battle Cannon being blast.
Not Online!!! wrote: I am just happy that daemonengines can now actually be played as the hybrids they were intended.
Imagine a working defiler.
Really ? You are hitting on 5s with your daemonengine, if enemy units are in engagement range of it, and you can only target those units.
Nope! You can target beyond those units but when you go to resolve the attacks, if the units in engagement range are not slain then you cannot fire outside of those.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Those big guns are most likely going to be blast weapons, which they state will not be able to fire. (Unless I read it wrong) Also, I am sure anything with a minimum range won't be able to be fired... under the minimum range...
Ok, then a leman russ can fire its battle cannon against a unit of grots in engagement range ?
They -specifically- mentioned the Battle Cannon being blast.
Sounds like a lot of vehicles arent gonna be able to fire their guns when enemy units are in engagement range. I wonder if any main guns wont be blast weapons. Sounds like you need sponsons on vehicles.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Not Online!!! wrote: I am just happy that daemonengines can now actually be played as the hybrids they were intended.
Imagine a working defiler.
Really ? You are hitting on 5s with your daemonengine, if enemy units are in engagement range of it, and you can only target those units.
I assume they are more excited about the move and fire without -1. Daemon Engines were supposed to be able to do shooting and melee, but they could never do the melee part as moving to get into combat meant hitting on 5's with the shooting
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Those big guns are most likely going to be blast weapons, which they state will not be able to fire. (Unless I read it wrong) Also, I am sure anything with a minimum range won't be able to be fired... under the minimum range...
Yeah , pretty sure I heard that too.
Blast weapons could not be fired into units the tank / monster is engaged with.
However you will be able to declare firing secondary weapons into engaged infantry, and declare a further target for the battle cannon. If you clear out the chaff, the battle cannon will be able to shoot the other target, if you fail to clear out the chaff, you battle cannon shot is wasted.
Galas wrote: @ERJAK you can not compare a unit just to the BEST unit of is type to value is worth. Theres many units that were barely playable, the combos were there, but they just didn't hit the mark to become competitive usable (Even if not the TOP CHOICES of the game) but with this they are helped. The relative power spike to enter into competitive range is better for those units.
Most competitive choices were actually things that ignore penalties or had ways to ignore them, as you pointed out Iron Hands pre nerf, the Eldar Flyers with the Exarc Power to be BS 2+ (Or ignore the -1 to hit, I don't remember), etc...
But when everybody has access to the same, those exceptions become less powerfull comparatively speaking.
I agree, my greater point is just that this is not going to make vehicles that were bad good. It's not going to fix the hunter or the stalker or the Immolator. What it's going to do is make borderline vehicles, ones that didn't already have ignore -1, good enough to maybe be strong competitive options.
I guess I'm going for a temper your expectations type thing. You'll probably be able to feel a lot better about bringing a Razorback or a Stormtalon but you're not going to suddenly see a Hammerhead spam list take LVO because it doesn't get -1 to hit for moving anymore.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Those big guns are most likely going to be blast weapons, which they state will not be able to fire. (Unless I read it wrong) Also, I am sure anything with a minimum range won't be able to be fired... under the minimum range...
Ok, then a leman russ can fire its battle cannon against a unit of grots in engagement range ?
They -specifically- mentioned the Battle Cannon being blast.
Sounds like a lot of vehicles arent gonna be able to fire their guns when enemy units are in engagement range. I wonder if any main guns wont be blast weapons. Sounds like you need sponsons on vehicles.
I mean that's why sponsons were invented: to serve as point defense against infantry.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
...No? presumably all those are blast weapons?
I also wonder why this rule doesnt mention blast weapons not being able to target enemy units within engagement range.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
Those big guns are most likely going to be blast weapons, which they state will not be able to fire. (Unless I read it wrong) Also, I am sure anything with a minimum range won't be able to be fired... under the minimum range...
Ok, then a leman russ can fire its battle cannon against a unit of grots in engagement range ?
The battle cannon is also a multi-hit weapon that would most likely end up being a Blast weapon. You are being intentionally obtuse.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
...No? presumably all those are blast weapons?
I also wonder why this rule doesnt mention blast weapons not being able to target enemy units within engagement range.
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
...No? presumably all those are blast weapons?
I also wonder why this rule doesnt mention blast weapons not being able to target enemy units within engagement range.
Because I would assume that big guns never tire is an exception to the usual rules preventing weapons from being fired at units within engagement range of other units?
Like that has to exist or none of this makes any sense, lol.
They mentioned flamers being able to shoot into melee, so they won't have blast.
Yes, Stu' mentioned the Leman Russ wielding heavy flamer being good at defence against melee. So if they are able to target engaged units, flamers will likely not get "blast" rule.
So all vehicles basically get steel behemoth now. Nice. Wonder if super heavys get something to make up for everything else having what used to make them special.
Wait. If the hellforged units keep their ability to heal wounds when they kill something in cc they will be nasty. Get them stuck in and they'll be pretty hard to drop.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So all vehicles basically get steel behemoth now. Nice. Wonder if super heavys get something to make up for everything else having what used to make them special.
Wait. If the hellforged units keep their ability to heal wounds when they kill something in cc they will be nasty. Get them stuck in and they'll be pretty hard to drop.
My chainclaw contemptor approves of this.
I’d predict Super Heavies will be able to target outside of combat with some impunity. Like their main weapons etc?
Called it! A week or so ago people on here said I was wishfully thinking or being daft for saying that vehicles would be allowed to fire INTO units that are in melee with that vehicle. That you could only fire OUT of melee at other units.
It seemed weird to me that when the rumor said "vehicles won't be bogged down in melee" that that meant it wouldn't be able to fire into models beating on it but could fire into models beating on something else.
Either way glad to see the change. Immolators might be worth a look for a transport. At least in 9th people might be less "inclined" to engage one in melee (at least with cheap, less durable units).
KurtAngle2 wrote: Vehicles and CM now ignore Heavy Penalty...about time!
And it will be revoked again in 10th. Love me some GW rules writing. Buhaha!
Well at least we will have some proper rules for vehicles. Damn it, there was eight pages of rules detailing behaviour of vehicles in 7th edition, including their shooting peculiarities.
We went from that, to a complete erase, <vehicle> being a mere keyword, an empty shell.
I'm quite optimistic about the announced rules, even if it will not bring back all the richness that we had in previous editions.
Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Pretty much.
They might ensure that the opponent of horde units will have a blast destroying them. They will be there to show how great the poster boys are (SM primaris).
p5freak wrote: Really GW ? A basilisk can now target an enemy unit in engagement range with its earthshaker cannon ? A shadowsword can target grots in engagement range with its volcano cannon ? How about a plagueburst crawler with its plagueburst mortar, which has 12-48" range ? It can also target enemy units in engagement range ?
GW says you should not nerdrage so fast, which would have helped you think that blast weapons can't. Ans these will turn into blast weapons. It looks better now doesn't it ?
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Honestly, I will be glad to see this be the "elite" edition rather than "hordes/weight of fire" edition.
Ironically, removing the -1 to hit from moving and shooting heavy weapons does more to improve non-infantry with FLY than the ability to shoot into the unit tagging you, at -1 with heavy weapons, improves vehicle without FLY.
Aside from making flamers actually a good choice, the effect this is going to have on the overall game is quite minor. You're still going to want to tag any vehicle you can with infantry, because it limits their targeting to the unit tagging them.
It will cure some of the gimmickiest applications of that rule - no longer will a single grot be able to shut down a leman russ - but that unit of 10 grots will still shut down that tank just fine.
Meanwhile, FLY models just got even better, since they can now now only fall back and shoot at any target, but also do it without a penalty. And not just vehicles - anything that isn't infantry.
The non-FLY models that are most improved by this are stuff with large volume of shots, especially flamers or non-heavy weapons with large shot volumes.
Frankly, the much more impactful thing they seem to have "revealed" today is that "Engagement Range" means 1", not 1" + any models in the unit within 1" of that unit. It could just be clumsily worded, and who gets to attack is still the same. But if they've restricted models eligible to attack in combat only to those within 1", it breaks the entire game fundamentally, to a level no amount of rules changes are going to help melee in 9th as long as they still have 8th edition stat profiles. I would like to think therefore that this is just clumsy wording...but it's GW, you never know.
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Perhaps use them for securing objectives instead?
It's a new way of playing. Who finds it any fun when 20 cultists with just their bare hands ties up a tank an entire game because the tank can't defend itself. Boyz with nobs with powerklaws (as I assume all ork nobz take them) will still kill that tank as fast, you'd just better do it before their tshirt have to save them from melee range firing.
I still miss the old days of tank shocking units that tried to bog you down into melee. It didn't always work but at least you were never bogged down (unless of course you took enough damage to cripple your movement).
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Why'd you pick an NPC faction if you didn't want to be play the NPC?s If you want to be the hero pick a hero faction. Might I suggest Primaris Space Marines?
Did they elaborate on Engagement Range at all? Is that the maximum distance you can melee with?
Pretty sure extra Dakka where there was none before, and counting Dakka Dakka Dakka in is only a boost?
Sure, it's better. But not by much.
You kill an extra...
12 shots
4 hits, 2 extra shots for .67 extra hits
3.11 wounds against T3-4
2.59 GEQ
And if the opponent is feeling cheeky, they can technically throw Take Cover on them to improve their save.
Let me put it this way-it's a buff, but it's a minor one that, with what we know now, doesn't really fix Ghaz. That being said! I have heard (no idea on the accuracy) that character rules are changing, which could make Ghaz better relative to other characters.
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Perhaps use them for securing objectives instead?
It's a new way of playing. Who finds it any fun when 20 cultists with just their bare hands ties up a tank an entire game because the tank can't defend itself. Boyz with nobs with powerklaws (as I assume all ork nobz take them) will still kill that tank as fast, you'd just better do it before their tshirt have to save them from melee range firing.
I still miss the old days of tank shocking units that tried to bog you down into melee. It didn't always work but at least you were never bogged down (unless of course you took enough damage to cripple your movement).
Yeah no. Power klaws are an absolute joke. 1.6 wounds on average to a tank with a nob with a klaw, 10 boyz (if they can all get within 1", lol) will do an average of about 2-3 wounds to your normal vehicle, with a klaw nob. and with 6pt cultists, who the hell knows what an ork boy will cost in this edition?
Silly nerd, ork boyz are for apocalypse! In 40k you're supposed to take knights and leviathans and land raiders!!!!!!
Yeah, Powerklaws aren't as deadly as they used to be.
Its only D3 damage from a model with 3 attacks and WS3+. Even if you roll hot you're only going to deal 9 damage.
That's not enough to kill most tanks. If it can't even one shot a vehicle while rolling hot, what good is it going to be on average? Its just not cost effective.
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Perhaps use them for securing objectives instead?
It's a new way of playing. Who finds it any fun when 20 cultists with just their bare hands ties up a tank an entire game because the tank can't defend itself. Boyz with nobs with powerklaws (as I assume all ork nobz take them) will still kill that tank as fast, you'd just better do it before their tshirt have to save them from melee range firing.
I still miss the old days of tank shocking units that tried to bog you down into melee. It didn't always work but at least you were never bogged down (unless of course you took enough damage to cripple your movement).
Oh I too miss the old days of tank shock, death or glory, ramming vehicles and whacky damage table. That was fun times, uncertainty and epic moments.
Currently we have tagging / clicking into melee, you can't do anything, you can't shoot.
And health point counters, like life point bars in video games. And flat damage, damage per turn.
Yeah, sigh...
yukishiro1 wrote: They're 9 points. Of course you're not going to kill a tank with one of them in one turn. If you could, it'd be pretty overpowered.
Isn't it 13 points? And yeah, if on average it killed a tank in one turn it would be a problem, but it doesn't do that if you roll really luckily. You'd expect more from a weapon that was traditionally the Orks' solution to hard targets.
yukishiro1 wrote: They're 9 points. Of course you're not going to kill a tank with one of them in one turn. If you could, it'd be pretty overpowered.
I never said they should. I was responding to someone who claimed a unit of ork boyz would deeeefinitely totes kill a tank even with 1" engagement range and their gakky gakky melee stats.
yukishiro1 wrote: They're 9 points. Of course you're not going to kill a tank with one of them in one turn. If you could, it'd be pretty overpowered.
yeah, was just coming on to say something similar. You shouldn't expect to kill a tank with a single powerklaw or fist etc. You need specialist tank killers to kill....say, tanks? maybe orks will just have to look at some other units in their codex than massed boyz (although I'm sure they will still have their place).
I wonder if they clarify what it means if the unit makes a normal move. Not every model has to move in a unit. What if the heavy weapon model remains still ? Does the entire unit count as moved, when only one model moves ?
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Perhaps use them for securing objectives instead?
It's a new way of playing. Who finds it any fun when 20 cultists with just their bare hands ties up a tank an entire game because the tank can't defend itself. Boyz with nobs with powerklaws (as I assume all ork nobz take them) will still kill that tank as fast, you'd just better do it before their tshirt have to save them from melee range firing.
I still miss the old days of tank shocking units that tried to bog you down into melee. It didn't always work but at least you were never bogged down (unless of course you took enough damage to cripple your movement).
Yeah no. Power klaws are an absolute joke. 1.6 wounds on average to a tank with a nob with a klaw, 10 boyz (if they can all get within 1", lol) will do an average of about 2-3 wounds to your normal vehicle, with a klaw nob. and with 6pt cultists, who the hell knows what an ork boy will cost in this edition?
Silly nerd, ork boyz are for apocalypse! In 40k you're supposed to take knights and leviathans and land raiders!!!!!!
So again, don't use chaff to kill tanks. Hormogaunts were not meant to peel tanks open, that job was always for carnifexes and other TMC's, maybe 'stealers. Every army in the game has tank and mc killing units that aren't chaff units and for good reason.
Use 20 cultists to secure an objective or 12 (or whatever max size is) ork boyz. Any unit wanting to complete an objective in 9th MUST forfeit all other actions to do so. Cultists shooting is not missed for 1 turn; use ork boyz defensively for holding an objective.
Not being able to destroy vehicles with impunity is not a bad thing at all for the game. I suppose next you are going to complain about vehicles and MC's not suffering -1 to shoot when moving?
yukishiro1 wrote: They're 9 points. Of course you're not going to kill a tank with one of them in one turn. If you could, it'd be pretty overpowered.
I never said they should. I was responding to someone who claimed a unit of ork boyz would deeeefinitely totes kill a tank even with 1" engagement range and their gakky gakky melee stats.
Was responding to the person who said they aren't points efficient cause they don't kill tanks in one round.
Did they actually confirm that that 1" engagement range is as crazy and stupid as it sounds? I have a hard time believing even GW would be so stupid as to reduce the amount of models that can fight in melee by so much.
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Why'd you pick an NPC faction if you didn't want to be play the NPC?s If you want to be the hero pick a hero faction. Might I suggest Primaris Space Marines?
My auspex scan senses quite a bit of salty sarcasm.
yukishiro1 wrote: They're 9 points. Of course you're not going to kill a tank with one of them in one turn. If you could, it'd be pretty overpowered.
They're 9 points, plus the cost of the Nob carrying it, plus the costs involved with getting into close combat with an important tank.
I mean, Centurion Assault Drills are FREE, and if they're on a 4 attack sergeant, they can one-round a Leman Russ even OFF the charge. On the charge, you've got more than a 10% chance of wrecking a Leman Russ with that one model, with absolutely no bonuses other than the singular extra attack on the charge.
Yeah I am assuming it is just an awkward, misleading (Hi GW!) way of restating the rule as it already exists, and that you'll still be able to fight as long as you're either in "Engagement Range (TM)" or within 1" of a model in your unit that's within Engagement Range (TM).
yukishiro1 wrote: They're 9 points. Of course you're not going to kill a tank with one of them in one turn. If you could, it'd be pretty overpowered.
They're 9 points, plus the cost of the Nob carrying it, plus the costs involved with getting into close combat with an important tank.
I mean, Centurion Assault Drills are FREE, and if they're on a 4 attack sergeant, they can one-round a Leman Russ even OFF the charge. On the charge, you've got more than a 10% chance of wrecking a Leman Russ with that one model, with absolutely no bonuses other than the singular extra attack on the charge.
They aren't free, they're baked into the cost of the model.
One of the best thing about power fists/klaws/etc is that they are usually insulated by a bunch of cheaper troops, so your chances of losing those points before they can do anything are much lower.
Sasori wrote: We don't know that models can only fight within the 1' engagement range, do we?
It may just be used for determining shooting purposes and if a unit is melee combat.
We don't for sure. It may be that Cut Them Down just works completely differently from regular melee combat.
I personally find it a little bit unlikely, but I really do want any excuse to believe melee units aren't just totally hosed at this point, particularly the non hyperelite superdeadly variety of melee unit.
I'm guessing "engagement range" is fancy term for "units must be within 1" of each other to be considered in range for melee".
Like how you have to be within 1" now to fight in melee even though units get 3" (or 6") pile in moves and that it's not just models within 1" that get to fight.
yukishiro1 wrote: They're 9 points. Of course you're not going to kill a tank with one of them in one turn. If you could, it'd be pretty overpowered.
They're 9 points, plus the cost of the Nob carrying it, plus the costs involved with getting into close combat with an important tank.
I mean, Centurion Assault Drills are FREE, and if they're on a 4 attack sergeant, they can one-round a Leman Russ even OFF the charge. On the charge, you've got more than a 10% chance of wrecking a Leman Russ with that one model, with absolutely no bonuses other than the singular extra attack on the charge.
They aren't free, they're baked into the cost of the model.
One of the best thing about power fists/klaws/etc is that they are usually insulated by a bunch of cheaper troops, so your chances of losing those points before they can do anything are much lower.
If we assume Warpath or some other +1 Attack buff to give the Nob 4 attacks, want to know the odds of them one-rounding a Leman Russ?
It's .01%. One percent of one percent.
That's one THOUSAND times less likely than a single Centurion Assault Sergeant taking down a Leman Russ.
Of course you're not going to oneshot a leman russ with a powerklaw nob. I honestly don't get what point you think you're making here. That assault centurions are better at killing tanks in melee than boyz? Uh...yeah?
the_scotsman wrote: Man alive there better be something real real good to incentivize taking units as a horde.
"Hordes, they're great! None of your dudes can fight, vehicles will score max hits on you automatically - enjoy those Heavy 12 Thunderfire cannons - and now you can't tie things up in melee anymore!
Hormagants, ork boyz, cultists, GSC - you just paint those things so the people you're playing against can feel cool while they make you shovel them off the board, right?"
Perhaps use them for securing objectives instead?
It's a new way of playing. Who finds it any fun when 20 cultists with just their bare hands ties up a tank an entire game because the tank can't defend itself. Boyz with nobs with powerklaws (as I assume all ork nobz take them) will still kill that tank as fast, you'd just better do it before their tshirt have to save them from melee range firing.
I still miss the old days of tank shocking units that tried to bog you down into melee. It didn't always work but at least you were never bogged down (unless of course you took enough damage to cripple your movement).
Yeah no. Power klaws are an absolute joke. 1.6 wounds on average to a tank with a nob with a klaw, 10 boyz (if they can all get within 1", lol) will do an average of about 2-3 wounds to your normal vehicle, with a klaw nob. and with 6pt cultists, who the hell knows what an ork boy will cost in this edition?
Silly nerd, ork boyz are for apocalypse! In 40k you're supposed to take knights and leviathans and land raiders!!!!!!
So again, don't use chaff to kill tanks. Hormogaunts were not meant to peel tanks open, that job was always for carnifexes and other TMC's, maybe 'stealers. Every army in the game has tank and mc killing units that aren't chaff units and for good reason.
Use 20 cultists to secure an objective or 12 (or whatever max size is) ork boyz. Any unit wanting to complete an objective in 9th MUST forfeit all other actions to do so. Cultists shooting is not missed for 1 turn; use ork boyz defensively for holding an objective.
Not being able to destroy vehicles with impunity is not a bad thing at all for the game. I suppose next you are going to complain about vehicles and MC's not suffering -1 to shoot when moving?
I think you might be surprised to find that the average Ork player might want to actually use Boyz in combat with some degree of effectiveness, and may not be entirely satisfied with the "just use your ork boyz to stand there on the battlefield scoring objectives" solution.
People may want the iconic troop choice of their army, whether that be ork boyz, tactical marines, daemons, chaos space marines, guardians, or whatever, to be able to accomplish something in a game of warhammer 40,000 without having to play apocalypse rules for them to be worth any kind of anything.
I'm not asking for a min squad of ork boyz to be able to kill a leman russ. I'm just hoping that there is some incentive to bring units of something that are anywhere near the "horde limit" of whatever number they put in for max hits from blast weapons.
Because otherwise why have that rule in the first place? Nobody's going to hand you a horde to slaughter just so you can feel cool with your blast weapons. if you want that rule to exist and do anything, there needs to be some incentive for someone to actually put a horde down on the table for you to shoot.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course you're not going to oneshot a leman russ with a powerklaw nob. I honestly don't get what point you think you're making here.
That a single Centurion can do it, if not consistently, not unheard of, with no buffs, for 42 points. (52 is the more common loadout, since Hurricane Bolters make them ALSO great at clearing hordes, but they can be as cheap as 42.)
But a Nob that's been buffed with an extra attack gets to do it one in 10,000 times.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course you're not going to oneshot a leman russ with a powerklaw nob. I honestly don't get what point you think you're making here. That assault centurions are better at killing tanks in melee than boyz? Uh...yeah?
I was responding to this comment:
"Boyz with nobs with powerklaws (as I assume all ork nobz take them) will still kill that tank as fast, you'd just better do it before their tshirt have to save them from melee range firing."
that is all. Holy crap, why do people want to believe that responding to a strawman and pointing out how stupid it is means you hold that strawman belief yourself.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course you're not going to oneshot a leman russ with a powerklaw nob. I honestly don't get what point you think you're making here.
That a single Centurion can do it, if not consistently, not unheard of, with no buffs, for 42 points. (52 is the more common loadout, since Hurricane Bolters make them ALSO great at clearing hordes, but they can be as cheap as 42.)
But a Nob that's been buffed with an extra attack gets to do it one in 10,000 times.
Ok? And knights are better at shooting tanks than guardsmen?
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course you're not going to oneshot a leman russ with a powerklaw nob. I honestly don't get what point you think you're making here. That assault centurions are better at killing tanks in melee than boyz? Uh...yeah?
I was responding to this comment:
"Boyz with nobs with powerklaws (as I assume all ork nobz take them) will still kill that tank as fast, you'd just better do it before their tshirt have to save them from melee range firing."
that is all. Holy crap, why do people want to believe that responding to a strawman and pointing out how stupid it is means you hold that strawman belief yourself.
yukishiro1 wrote: It does certainly make Cut Them Down utterly, completely useless junk, as opposed to only mostly completely useless junk.
So you get free shots on units falling back out of combat and that's bad? So I guess even though you need 6's (most units anyway) to hit in Overwatch that Overwatch is completely utterly useless?
If you don't want to spend 1 CP to maybe pick off another model or 2 voluntarily leaving melee than don't use it. It's not always going to be good or work as intended but when you play a game that uses random dice rolls to determine outcomes nothing is certain.
I personally think that the rule for voluntarily leaving combat and involuntarily leaving combat (broken morale) should be like it was in days of old. You fail morale or choose to run you and your opponent dice off, if your opponent rolls higher than you for fall back distance your unit is wiped off the board.
That way I can wipe out 20 hormogaunts with 5 pox walkers and not be stuck in melee for 4 turns.
yukishiro1 wrote: Ok? And knights are better at shooting tanks than guardsmen?
A Nob is 27 points with a Power Klaw, Choppa, and Stikkbombs.
If we assume that being in two bodies of T4 4+ W2 each is worth the same as one body of T5 2+ W4 (which it isn't, but whatever) then 2 Nobs is just 2 points more than a Hurricane Bolter Assault Centurion. Close enough for government work.
The two Nobs have 6 attacks.
3 hits.
2 wounds.
5/3 failed saves.
10/3 damage, or 3.33
A single Centurion has 3 attacks (4 on the charge, but we'll ignore that)
2 hits
4/3 wounds
4/3 failed saves
4 damage, or 4.00
So, a single Centurion is worth more than two Nobs in close combat against their favored targets. Technically the Nob has a Choppa, which adds about .07 points of damage per nob, but that's paltry. The Centurion ALSO has 12 shots that hit on 3s. And two flamers. And is more durable.
yukishiro1 wrote: It does certainly make Cut Them Down utterly, completely useless junk, as opposed to only mostly completely useless junk.
So you get free shots on units falling back out of combat and that's bad? So I guess even though you need 6's (most units anyway) to hit in Overwatch that Overwatch is completely utterly useless?
If you don't want to spend 1 CP to maybe pick off another model or 2 voluntarily leaving melee than don't use it. It's not always going to be good or work as intended but when you play a game that uses random dice rolls to determine outcomes nothing is certain.
I personally think that the rule for voluntarily leaving combat and involuntarily leaving combat (broken morale) should be like it was in days of old. You fail morale or choose to run you and your opponent dice off, if your opponent rolls higher than you for fall back distance your unit is wiped off the board.
That way I can wipe out 20 hormogaunts with 5 pox walkers and not be stuck in melee for 4 turns.
Hey I said before if they change Overwatch to a stratagem you can use once per turn for 1cp and every model in the defending unit rolls a die, on a 6 they get a MW then fair's fair man, I'll take my crap rule and you take yours.
I just love seeing the double standard at play where people think Overwatch is cool as a completely free, bonus universal rule that is always on at all times and everyone always gets, but the melee equivalent has to be A) worse damage in 99% of situations than a free attack where 6s hit, and B) a stratagem that costs CP and 1 unit gets to use once per turn.
To make Cut Them Down get the same value as the standard "1CP to do D3 MW when X" stratagem, you'd need to have 12 models within 1" of the unit. That's virtually impossible.
It's hot garbage of a stratagem. One of the worst stratagems in the game. That doesn't mean you can't come up with some weird situation it might be worth doing, but it utterly fails at its stated purpose. The only time you're going to see people using it is to fish for MW to kill a retreating character with a single wound left or something like that. The idea that it punishes people for falling back generally is a complete joke.
With the limitation of only models within 1", it would need to do MWs on a 4+ to be priced to move.
Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...
To make Cut Them Down get the same value as the standard "1CP to do D3 MW when X" stratagem, you'd need to have 12 models within 1" of the unit. That's virtually impossible.
It's hot garbage of a stratagem. One of the worst stratagems in the game. That doesn't mean you can't come up with some weird situation it might be worth doing, but it utterly fails at its stated purpose. The only time you're going to see people using it is to fish for MW to kill a retreating character with a single wound left or something like that. The idea that it punishes people for falling back generally is a complete joke.
With the limitation of only models within 1", it would need to do MWs on a 4+ to be priced to move.
Or just, I don't know, not use the stupid fething MW mechanic in the first place? MWs make sense in really only the most specific rule circumstances and they make most things just laughably weird. Why the flying heck is it as danegerous to run away from a single grot as it is to run away from a warlord titan?
yukishiro1 wrote: Ok? And knights are better at shooting tanks than guardsmen?
A Nob is 27 points with a Power Klaw, Choppa, and Stikkbombs.
If we assume that being in two bodies of T4 4+ W2 each is worth the same as one body of T5 2+ W4 (which it isn't, but whatever) then 2 Nobs is just 2 points more than a Hurricane Bolter Assault Centurion. Close enough for government work.
The two Nobs have 6 attacks.
3 hits.
2 wounds.
5/3 failed saves.
10/3 damage, or 3.33
A single Centurion has 3 attacks (4 on the charge, but we'll ignore that)
2 hits
4/3 wounds
4/3 failed saves
4 damage, or 4.00
So, a single Centurion is worth more than two Nobs in close combat against their favored targets. Technically the Nob has a Choppa, which adds about .07 points of damage per nob, but that's paltry. The Centurion ALSO has 12 shots that hit on 3s. And two flamers. And is more durable.
Do you not see the issue?
So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?
I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doctor-boom wrote: Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...
No you can't. In fact the rule specifically says the opposite. I don't know how you read it that way.
Doctor-boom wrote: Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...
Isnt' that the opposite of the case though? it seemed to me that they said you could declare weapons would fire out of the melee combat, but in order to do so you needed to have no units within 1" when it came time to fire those weapons.
So it's basically like "I bet I'll be able to kill you with these guns, so I'll declare this other gun against a different target and hope I manage to get you out of 1" before it comes time to fire that one"
A great reveal today. Vehicles being able to move and shoot normally is wonderful! They will have to look at some of the Strats/rules put in place for some to compensate (Strafing Run on my Nephilim for instance, and Roving Gunship on my Valkryies), but this should make for a more mobile game. That, to me, means more fun.
Dreadnoughts with balanced weapon loadouts benefit - a Redemptor Dread now went up in usefulness for a number of reasons. They can now walk along and shoot normally, and if you assault one with a mob you had better hope you kill it/cripple it in your first round. Landspeeders might just find their way back to the tabletop?
Doctor-boom wrote: Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...
That's just bad reading. The point of the rule is that you can split your fire instead of only shooting at the combatants next to you, but if they aren't dead when you come to the guns pointing at other directions you lose the shots. The declaration still happens before any shots are fired. This is the risk/reward Stu was talking about.
To make Cut Them Down get the same value as the standard "1CP to do D3 MW when X" stratagem, you'd need to have 12 models within 1" of the unit. That's virtually impossible.
It's hot garbage of a stratagem. One of the worst stratagems in the game. That doesn't mean you can't come up with some weird situation it might be worth doing, but it utterly fails at its stated purpose. The only time you're going to see people using it is to fish for MW to kill a retreating character with a single wound left or something like that. The idea that it punishes people for falling back generally is a complete joke.
With the limitation of only models within 1", it would need to do MWs on a 4+ to be priced to move.
Or just, I don't know, not use the stupid fething MW mechanic in the first place? MWs make sense in really only the most specific rule circumstances and they make most things just laughably weird. Why the flying heck is it as danegerous to run away from a single grot as it is to run away from a warlord titan?
Definitely. The whole strat is set up stupidly from the beginning and makes no sense. But that's a different question from whether it's good or not in a mathematical sense. It could still be good with MWs as long as the values were set high enough, even if conceptually it was still a dumpster fire.
Doctor-boom wrote: Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...
That's not what it says at all. You still have to declare all targets, it's just that if you don't kill the ones in engagement range then the weapon you allocated to shoot out of combat will be unable to fire at all.
So if I'm to get this straight we (and that doesn't include me) are complaining that the biggest reason most vehicles in 8th are gak is because they suffer penalties to hit when moving and they can't fire defensively against units beating on their hulls now makes infantry NOT designed to kill tanks gak and not worth taking because those tanks can now fire defensively at units beating on them in melee.
Gotcha?
How is saying an ork power klaw nob can kill a tank just as fast in 9th a strawman? I didn't say it can kill it faster or slower, i said just as fast. A PK nob doesn't kill a tank SLOWER because that tank can now fire on the boys unit defensively (unless the boyz unit runs which obviously if the nob is the last one to run away means no more nob with PK beating on tank).
As to why people don't want to use iconic units to complete objectives and not for other things? It depends on the unit. Not all Daemon's units are meant for offense. Plaguebearers come to mind. Nobody takes 3 units of 20 plaguebearers to punch opponents armies to death in melee, they are taken to "secure objectives". SM Scouts are technically objective takers, that is even in their lore but most people don't take scouts because Intercessors are better at everything. Scouts are iconic, take Scouts for taking objectives if you want "iconic" objective takers in your army.
I think the biggest issue is that people will have to change their lists up slightly and change their mindset about the game. It's nothing new, it happens every edition. I don't see why 9th should be any different.
The more that I think about it, if they were actually going to restrict melee to only models within 1", not within 1" of 1", they would have already said so, because it would be without a doubt the biggest single change to the rules in the entire edition. They've answered questions about melee viability several times on various streams, and if they were making such a fundamental change, I refuse to believe that even GW would not yet have mentioned it.
All this junk about what is actually relatively minor changes to vehicles that they are hyping as "the" big change in 9th would pale in comparison to the significance of melee only within 1".
yukishiro1 wrote: So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?
I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).
A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.
A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.
jivardi wrote: So if I'm to get this straight we (and that doesn't include me) are complaining that the biggest reason most vehicles in 8th are gak is because they suffer penalties to hit when moving and they can't fire defensively against units beating on their hulls now makes infantry NOT designed to kill tanks gak and not worth taking because those tanks can now fire defensively at units beating on them in melee.
Gotcha?
How is saying an ork power klaw nob can kill a tank just as fast in 9th a strawman? I didn't say it can kill it faster or slower, i said just as fast. A PK nob doesn't kill a tank SLOWER because that tank can now fire on the boys unit defensively (unless the boyz unit runs which obviously if the nob is the last one to run away means no more nob with PK beating on tank).
As to why people don't want to use iconic units to complete objectives and not for other things? It depends on the unit. Not all Daemon's units are meant for offense. Plaguebearers come to mind. Nobody takes 3 units of 60 plaguebearers to punch opponents armies to death in melee, they are taken to "secure objectives". SM Scouts are technically objective takers, that is even in their lore but most people don't take scouts because Intercessors are better at everything. Scouts are iconic, take Scouts for taking objectives if you want "iconic" objective takers in your army.
I think the biggest issue is that people will have to change their lists up slightly and change their mindset about the game. It's nothing new, it happens every edition. I don't see why 9th should be any different.
I run Nurgle Daemons. My Plagubearers are there to kill stuff.
yukishiro1 wrote: So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?
I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).
A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.
A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.
The nob does the same (maybe even more against chaff?) damage as an assault centurion against 1W models. That's literally what the difference between a flat 3D weapon and a 1d3 weapon is. If flat 3D weapons weren't more efficient at hitting multi-wound targets, what would be the point in them?
So if your point after all that was that power klaws should cost 9 points, the same as power fists...yes, I agree. "Space marines are just better" is not good for the game.
yukishiro1 wrote: The more that I think about it, if they were actually going to restrict melee to only models within 1", not within 1" of 1", they would have already said so, because it would be without a doubt the biggest single change to the rules in the entire edition. They've answered questions about melee viability several times on various streams, and if they were making such a fundamental change, I refuse to believe that even GW would not yet have mentioned it.
All this junk about what is actually relatively minor changes to vehicles that they are hyping as "the" big change in 9th would pale in comparison to the significance of melee only within 1".
I wonder if they are thinking about moving to the AoS where melee weapons have a range, like 1', 2' and 3'. I think this would be a poor choice, as melee is already pretty weak and I don't think would translate over that well right now.
There are rumors that OW is going away entirely. That would pretty significantly improve melee prospects I believe.
That kinda proves the point, though. They're already cited "changes to overwatch" as a reason that melee will be better - in other words, they mentioned it. It would have been incredibly misleading if when talking about the balance between melee and ranged, they didn't mention a massive, game-changing reduction in the amount of melee models that can fight.
If I'm proved wrong I'm proved wrong, and I've been too optimistic in the past...but that would be both completely brainless and fundamentally game-changing, and I just don't think they'd have done it without it being front and center in their reveal.
yukishiro1 wrote: The more that I think about it, if they were actually going to restrict melee to only models within 1", not within 1" of 1", they would have already said so, because it would be without a doubt the biggest single change to the rules in the entire edition. They've answered questions about melee viability several times on various streams, and if they were making such a fundamental change, I refuse to believe that even GW would not yet have mentioned it.
All this junk about what is actually relatively minor changes to vehicles that they are hyping as "the" big change in 9th would pale in comparison to the significance of melee only within 1".
Yeah, at this point the only thing that I can come up with is:
during all the previews leading up to 8th they basically gave no details about how melee would work, except that it would be "great' and "the best edition ever for melee".
and the reason why they didn't was...surprise, melee sucks in 8th.And the change from 7th to 8th massively improved shooting over melee.
Doctor-boom wrote: Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...
That's not new. Most people use fast rolling to speed things up though.
EDIT: I misread that. All targets are declared first, but individual weapons are resolved 1 at a time.
I run Nurgle Daemons. My Plagubearers are there to kill stuff.
Obviously mono-Nurgle armies operate differently but most, if not all, Deamon armies are mixed god and nobody who know what their doing is using Plaguebearers to kill stuff in melee and using Daemonettes or Bloodletters to secure and hold objectives.
Exceptions can be made for everything. Like how in 9th you have to decide how your mono-Nurgle army is going to take objectives if your Plaguebearers are punching people in the face. Either Nurglings or don't commit all your PB's.
My point still stands. With the change to how objectives are taken and secured people will have to take units they didn't before to use the more valuable, offensive minded units to punch/shoot other units or sacrifice their more elite units combat abilities to score VP's.
Or go for a tabling of your opponent although that isn't a guaranteed win either.
yukishiro1 wrote: So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?
I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).
A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.
A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.
The nob does the same (maybe even more against chaff?) damage as an assault centurion against 1W models. That's literally what the difference between a flat 3D weapon and a 1d3 weapon is. If flat 3D weapons weren't more efficient at hitting multi-wound targets, what would be the point in them?
So if your point after all that was that power klaws should cost 9 points, the same as power fists...yes, I agree. "Space marines are just better" is not good for the game.
Really now? Name a chaff model that does better against 3-5 S10 AP-4 D3 swings and 12 S4 AP0 D1 shots per model.
yukishiro1 wrote: So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?
I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).
A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.
A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.
The nob does the same (maybe even more against chaff?) damage as an assault centurion against 1W models. That's literally what the difference between a flat 3D weapon and a 1d3 weapon is. If flat 3D weapons weren't more efficient at hitting multi-wound targets, what would be the point in them?
So if your point after all that was that power klaws should cost 9 points, the same as power fists...yes, I agree. "Space marines are just better" is not good for the game.
Really now? Name a chaff model that does better against 3-5 S10 AP-4 D3 swings and 12 S4 AP0 D1 shots per model.
Uh we were obviously talking close combat. You're the one who mentioned close combat and said nobs need to do 2/3s or more the damage of assault centurions in close combat. I was simply pointing out that they do way more than just 2/3s the damage against anything with 1W.
yukishiro1 wrote: Where are you getting the idea that holding an objective is an action that doesn't allow the unit to do anything that turn?
Not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't seen that, and it's another massive change.
There are some missions that require you to perform actions that stop you from doing anything else with that unit in the previews.
Hmm, maybe choosing for a unit to go on Overwatch in your turn? man I would love this. No more having cake and eating it, you either fire...or you choose to go defensive and go on Overwatch.
Yukishiro, let me see if I can get us on a level with each other.
Given the points costs, stats, and equipment, Assault Centurions and Nobs (hell, most Ork units in general) are wildly out of whack with each other. Either the Nobs need to be a LOT cheaper/harder hitting, or the Centurions need to go up/be made worse.
The 2 example missions showed state in the mission that in order to take the objective the unit attempting to take it can perform no other actions that player turn.
Taken from the WH community article:
The new edition also adds actions to Warhammer 40,000. Traditionally, your models could either stand near objectives or shoot/punch. No longer! Now you can perform rituals, plant homing beacons, raise banners on key objectives and more. This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.
Notice the last sentence. "You need to decide to engage the enemy or accomplish the mission."
The 2 example missions showed state in the mission that in order to take the objective the unit attempting to take it can perform no other actions that player turn.
Taken from the WH community article:
The new edition also adds actions to Warhammer 40,000. Traditionally, your models could either stand near objectives or shoot/punch. No longer! Now you can perform rituals, plant homing beacons, raise banners on key objectives and more. This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.
Notice the last sentence. "You need to decide to engage the enemy or accomplish the mission."
To clarify, that was only for the optional secondary objective worth up to 15VP total. The primary objectives didn’t involve performing an action at all.
Some missions have bonus points you get from selecting secondary objectives that involve doing actions that require you to do nothing else. This is basically just engineers from ITC.
But again, that isn't remotely the same as saying to hold an objective you now need to do an action that stops you from doing anything else. Those missions emphatically do *not* say that simply in order to hold an objective, you have to do an action that doesn't let you do anything else.
Will see if there is other changes to dreads... but basically the only good dreads appear to still be the shooty dreads. (Which got better) If you can’t get a melee dread into melee quick enough it’s going to be a waste of points. If you got a jack of all trades dread... you are paying a lot for half a profile you won’t use much.
JNAProductions wrote: Yukishiro, let me see if I can get us on a level with each other.
Given the points costs, stats, and equipment, Assault Centurions and Nobs (hell, most Ork units in general) are wildly out of whack with each other. Either the Nobs need to be a LOT cheaper/harder hitting, or the Centurions need to go up/be made worse.
Do you agree?
Nobz in boyz units are just fine, aside from the stupidity of a power klaw costing 13 points while power fists that are exactly the same cost 9 points. That's just an instance of "space marines are just better" and should be fixed. Other than that, how can you possibly complain about getting a free Nob upgrade in a Boyz unit? That's tremendously good value.
Entire units of Nobz are a totally different question. They have been useless for a long time, and it would be great if they got something to make them not useless.
ClockworkZion wrote: So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?
Plus, the new rules make the Defiler I bought 15 years ago ALMOST useable!!
Well except for the battlecannon. but it's not an edition of the game warhammer 40,000 if you allow the Defiler to use all the gak GW slapped on it. Tradition demands something be pointless!
ClockworkZion wrote: So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?
It's a super heavy, so it can already do everything that other vehicles are going to be able to in 9th. The current theory is that super heavys will have the advantage of retaining their ability to shoot at targets they aren't in cc with despite being in cc.
Also, they are eyesores. Please, get a real marine super heavy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: Will see if there is other changes to dreads... but basically the only good dreads appear to still be the shooty dreads. (Which got better) If you can’t get a melee dread into melee quick enough it’s going to be a waste of points. If you got a jack of all trades dread... you are paying a lot for half a profile you won’t use much.
gungo wrote: Will see if there is other changes to dreads... but basically the only good dreads appear to still be the shooty dreads. (Which got better) If you can’t get a melee dread into melee quick enough it’s going to be a waste of points. If you got a jack of all trades dread... you are paying a lot for half a profile you won’t use much.
I don't know. I think the jack-of-all-trades dread got better. Previously, taking a gun was a waste of points on a melee dread due to the -1 to hit really hurting them. Now you can move, shoot your twin LC at vehicles and then engage with the close combat weapon. Still probably not as efficient as the shooty dreads, but I think better.
Also flame weapons on vehicles are definitely going to be the new hotness.
Were Leviathans still just A5? A gun + melee loadout looks good on them but if their attacks are so low might as well just spend the points on two shooting weapons since now those Heavy Flamers can kill whatever is in melee with them + one gun shooting into the squad, and then the other Stormcannon shoots regularly.
I’m curious if they will be changing wound allocation. If you get a unit in close enough to shut down a tank but only have 2 or 3 models within 1” then it might make it easier for vehicles to defend themselves with their side guns if wounds come off the closest models.
SirGrotzalot wrote: I’m curious if they will be changing wound allocation. If you get a unit in close enough to shut down a tank but only have 2 or 3 models within 1” then it might make it easier for vehicles to defend themselves with their side guns if wounds come off the closest models.
I hope not. the 'closest model' wounding mechanic was terrible for two reasons.
1. It slowed the game so badly as people made sure their main models could not be sniped.
2. The whole artificially spreading wounds and making sure full models didn't die.
Moving to owner picks models is one of the best changes from 7th to 8 imo
ClockworkZion wrote: So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?
Plus, the new rules make the Defiler I bought 15 years ago ALMOST useable!!
Well except for the battlecannon. but it's not an edition of the game warhammer 40,000 if you allow the Defiler to use all the gak GW slapped on it. Tradition demands something be pointless!
No penalty for moving and shooting the battle cannon, so that's a bit better.
ClockworkZion wrote: So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?
It's a super heavy, so it can already do everything that other vehicles are going to be able to in 9th. The current theory is that super heavys will have the advantage of retaining their ability to shoot at targets they aren't in cc with despite being in cc.
Also, they are eyesores. Please, get a real marine super heavy.
Pft, it's a great super heavy.
And I was more wanting to point out that a decent super heavy was looking more fun with the new rules.
I think Bjorn probably got the biggest boost of any single model in the game from these changes, especially with his assault cannon configuration that was kinda junk before. He effectively gets an additional 6+1d6 attacks in your turn now (the flamer + the assault cannon; the -1 to hit on the assault cannon is more or less balanced out by the auto-hits on the flamer) at S5/6 -1 1D, which makes his one single weakness - getting tarpitted with a bunch of junk infantry - go away. Still probably better with the twin lascannon TBH, but even that configuration got a significant boost.
The other big winners are anything with large volumes of shots, especially auto-hitting or non-heavy shots.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think Bjorn probably got the biggest boost of any single model in the game from these changes, especially with his assault cannon configuration that was kinda junk before. He effectively gets an additional 6+1d6 attacks in your turn now (the flamer + the assault cannon; the -1 to hit on the assault cannon is more or less balanced out by the auto-hits on the flamer) at S5/6 -1 1D, which makes his one single weakness - getting tarpitted with a bunch of junk infantry - go away. Still probably better with the twin lascannon TBH, but even that configuration got a significant boost.
The other big winners are anything with large volumes of shots, especially auto-hitting or non-heavy shots.
A thought crossed my mind since Bjorn came up: if he gets the Primaris treatment will he get to be undreadnoughted?
On another note is anyone else having difficulty reading some of these rules or is it just me? They seem overly wordy or something. I’m having to reread them 3+ times just to understand what they’re trying to say.
SirGrotzalot wrote: On another note is anyone else having difficulty reading some of these rules or is it just me? They seem overly wordy or something. I’m having to reread them 3+ times just to understand what they’re trying to say.
They need a paragraph break in there, but other than that I feel like they went all in on trying to eliminate ambiguity, which makes the rules a lot wordier than they used to be.
SirGrotzalot wrote: On another note is anyone else having difficulty reading some of these rules or is it just me? They seem overly wordy or something. I’m having to reread them 3+ times just to understand what they’re trying to say.
The BNT rule is definitely very wordy, but it seems to be covering most of the intereactions you would expect rather than leaving them to FAQ's and guesswork. The squished format of WarCom doesn't help and would probably be easier to read on the page anyway.
Todays reveals are pretty much all good, there are a lot of vehicles and a few monsters that are only really being held back by the movement penalty and the lack of Fly, so whilst this isn't a complete fix for everything it's definitely a good step.
"We at Games Workshop feel that shooting are underpowered, so we decided to buff them!"
- is basically what I've gleaned from the tank article. The attempted justification they gave is garbage too. Yeah a single nurgling shouldn't be able to tie up a Land Raider for all eternity, but that's more because land raiders should be fething super-heavy vehicles in the first place (look at the size of them). It absolutely makes sense for a squad of bloodletters to be able to tie up a Leman Russ though. Not only does it make sense from a simulation perspective (your vehicle is being swarmed by fething daemons with lava swords) but balance wise it takes significantly more skill and strategy to get melee units into combat then it takes to pilot armored gunlines, especially with chaff being as easy to come by as they are.
There had better be some serious fething buffs to melee armies for this edition. "b-but new terrain rules!" No. Terrain will never have a massive impact on gunlines. Half the gak in the game can fly anyway.
BlaxicanX wrote: "We at Games Workshop feel that shooting are underpowered, so we decided to buff them!"
- is basically what I've gleaned from the tank article. The attempted justification they gave is garbage too. Yeah a single nurgling shouldn't be able to tie up a Land Raider for all eternity, but that's more because land raiders should be fething super-heavy vehicles in the first place (look at the size of them). It absolutely makes sense for a squad of bloodletters to be able to tie up a Leman Russ though. Not only does it make sense from a simulation perspective (your vehicle is being swarmed by fething daemons with lava swords) but balance wise it takes significantly more skill and strategy to get melee units into combat then it takes to pilot armored gunlines, especially with chaff being as easy to come by as they are.
There had better be some serious fething buffs to melee armies for this edition.
They felt that tanks and monsters were underpowered. They didn't buff shooting on infantry.
bullyboy wrote: Several online BR channels (with one especially that is now known to be a playtester) have said that they 'thought" Codex Space marines 2.0 and Sisters of battle "felt" like 9th edition codexes compared to others. Just the way the armies were organized to encourage mono play. So it's not unrealistic to believe that some of the content of the PA Books was created with 9th in mind.
Eh the mono bonuses makes no sense when core rules already rewards mono. Those bonuses are 8th ed compliant rather than 9th
H.B.M.C. wrote: -1 To Hit for firing Heavy Weapons only applies to infantry now... hmm...
Maybe Forgefiends will be viable?
Certainly can’t see it harming them any.
And taken with the ‘kick combatants in the teeth and still shoot them’ definitely favours the like of Forgefiends. Possibly to the exclusion of Maulerfiends (I think that’s what it’s called?) if nothing else factors in.
Funny thing. Vehicles/monsters got buffed and at same time infantry heavy weapons got nerfed
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.
yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.
Sister of battle mortifier has ability to fire heavy flamers in melee. Guess that needs change or those got hit by nerfbat
