endlesswaltz123 wrote: I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.
There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.
Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.
It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.
Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.
And there's a lot more interaction than that.
I understand it is complex, and has many variables, it doesn't in comparison to 40k though.
It's like comparing the possible combinations in a 2D world, to a 3D world, quite literally actually.
The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.
One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.
GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.
The new terrain rules will also be appreciated by all Orks players. With terrain having clearly defined features, you don’t have to worry about your opponent seeing through a crack in the wall to shoot your entire Boyz squad. You can even give your squads a -1 modifier to be shot! This is a big advantage to Orks (and any army that likes to get stuck in) as it means you can seriously limit your opponent’s ability to stop your advance with their shooting.
Any ideas where that -1 is coming from in this bit of the article?
Something new?!
EDIT: Beaten to the punch! To add some new content (and hopefully more fuel to the fire) I just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXaAwml9RQU and at 01:50:00ish they talk about 9th. My understanding is Brian Pullen is a playtester and top ranked Tau player. They talk about how upset the 9th overwatch rules made him, that the Triptide might be dead, Farsight Enclaves are alive and how they feel that 9th is a very shooty edition.
BaconCatBug wrote: Guys GW is only a small £2 billion company, you can't expect them to hire people with Qualifications in Technical Writing.
If we all spend more on Brand's product, perhaps they'll make enough money to be able to let us pay again for functional Assault weapon rules next time!
Very disappointing they didn't use the Ork article to say something about morale and horde units. It really is starting to look like that "horde units will have advantages too" bit was just nonsense, especially since all the playtesters who have opined on it say that big units are boned hard in 9th.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.
There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.
Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.
It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.
Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.
And there's a lot more interaction than that.
I understand it is complex, and has many variables, it doesn't in comparison to 40k though.
It's like comparing the possible combinations in a 2D world, to a 3D world, quite literally actually.
The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.
One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.
GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.
Let's... not get into a [censored] comparing contest.
I play both MTG and WH40k. Hands down, Magic is more complex to balance for Vintage (1.0) [which is what allows for all cards, bar a comparatively small ban list] than WH40k. Yet, the most played format, Standard (2.0), has about 2500 to 3000 card interactions at most and is far less so.
However, Magic has a far more robust Design -> Development -> Live rules/card creation process that makes the process GW employs for WH40k look down-right primordial in its lack of rigor or iterative follow-through and QC. (I've written on this subject before on this very forum)
However the costs for production, overheads, shipping, and even business model are totally incomparable. Magic has a pennies per card manufacturing cost, a wider distribution channel, a deeper base of engaged customers, and a higher product turnover due to having virtually invented the "loot chest" business model at scale. Their healthier margins support a more expensive overhead.
And whilst we might all wish that GW could turn its record profits back into the product full-bore, the reality is that GW has had a shaky position of dominance over the last 20 years, with numerous upstart companies coming along with the serious potential of unseating them.
So, you can't compare MTG to WH40k, really--although one might be tempted to due to obvious parallels.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.
There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.
Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.
It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.
Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.
And there's a lot more interaction than that.
MtG has been proven to be turing-complete, meaning it can have an infinite number of game states. In theory, it would be possible to write, compile and run software code as part of a game of magic. It's literally impossible to have a game more complex than that
JNAProductions wrote: The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.
One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.
GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.
Yeah, I am done with trying to make the point there. To assume that all interactions would necessitate a discursive formal instance in the rules is not a position that I could even imagine to take, so I am not going to bother trying to disabuse someone of that notion. Nor of the notion that 40K is vastly more complicated than Magic. One, it is unclear even if that is the case or not and two, even if it is, it hardly proves that formalized rules still cannot possibly handle it. But we are down to fundamental assumptions and metaphysical commitments now, so there is no sense in discussing it with that person further as far as I can tell.
JNAProductions wrote: The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.
One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.
GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.
Yeah, I am done with trying to make the point there. To assume that all interactions would necessitate a discursive formal instance in the rules is not a position that I could even imagine to take, so I am not going to bother trying to disabuse someone of that notion. Nor of the notion that 40K is vastly more complicated than Magic. One, it is unclear even if that is the case or not and two, even if it is, it hardly proves that formalized rules still cannot possibly handle it. But we are down to fundamental assumptions and metaphysical commitments now, so there is no sense in discussing it with that person further as far as I can tell.
I think we're in agreement, actually-concise, clear, and robust base rules make for something where you can add lots of complexity (or, preferably, depth) without having anything break and with the rules still being clear to resolve.
Jidmah wrote: MtG has been proven to be turing-complete, meaning it can have an infinite number of game states. In theory, it would be possible to write, compile and run software code as part of a game of magic.
It's literally impossible to have a game more complex than that
No, no, you don't understand, clearly games 40K takes place in Hilbert space, so it simply must contain infinite degrees of freedom, therefor infinite interactions! Not to mention stat-lines interactions!!1!1
Basic math, friends, just use it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: I think we're in agreement, actually-concise, clear, and robust base rules make for something where you can add lots of complexity (or, preferably, depth) without having anything break and with the rules still being clear to resolve.
Yes, exactly my point. But I quoted you because I am simply done talking to that other person, my apologies.
JNAProductions wrote: I think we're in agreement, actually-concise, clear, and robust base rules make for something where you can add lots of complexity (or, preferably, depth) without having anything break and with the rules still being clear to resolve.
Yes, exactly my point. But I quoted you because I am simply done talking to that other person, my apologies.
sieGermans wrote: So, you can't compare MTG to WH40k, really--although one might be tempted to due to obvious parallels.
Most of the groundwork for the templating and rules-writing that people want GW to adapt was done by a single person. GW just needs to hire a person like Mark Gottlieb to fix their stuff.
sieGermans wrote: I play both MTG and WH40k. Hands down, Magic is more complex to balance for Vintage (1.0) [which is what allows for all cards, bar a comparatively small ban list] than WH40k. Yet, the most played format, Standard (2.0), has about 2500 to 3000 card interactions at most and is far less so.
Again though, the point is not balance, the point is rules clarity.
How many times in a MTG game, even a Vintage-legal game, is the game state unclear, or are the interactions unclear? And in those cases, how many are where the formal, Comprehensive rules unable to give a definitive solution, so much so, that RAI must come into play? (I think the answer is vanishingly small, honestly.)
That is what I am discussing. The formality of the rules, as it relates to clarity in how they would interact with each other. It has nothing to do with balance in any way, shape or form. Balance has nothing to do with formality or clarity. I am only discussing the latter two.
kodos wrote: It is kind of funny that people argue that there are too many units in the game making it impossible for GW to do better rules writing
yet GW is the one who gets the units into the game in the first place
If GW adds more units that their rules-writing skills can handle, this is not an excuse but their own fault
The main excuse for GW not being able to write good rules is GW
You're right. The model-making company should stop making new models. Excellent business plan.
or stop writing rules
if GW is not a gaming company but a model company, stop trying to sell crap as the "best game ever"
either get the model output down if this is the reason for bad rules, or get better at writing rules
but stop using "we are producing too many models per month" as an excuse for bad rules as this as their own desicion and something they can do nothing about it
ClockworkZion wrote:
My only argument is that the game would need a hard reboot on the entire system, statline and points mechanics to future proof it for balancing.
they had their chance with 8th but did not feel it was necessary but instead increased the amount of models by doubling on Marines
no sympathy here as it was their own decision to do it and if they cannot handle it there is no excuse
BaconCatBug wrote: Guys GW is only a small £2 billion company, you can't expect them to hire people with Qualifications in Technical Writing.
I think that's an unfairly reductionist representation of a reasonable point. To some extent it isn't just about having the resources, but what it is you are dealing with.
It's also foolish to rely upon monetary cost as being a sole indicator of quality/ability, or the quality/ability that one could potentially acquire.
However, I do also think it's reasonable to expect better. And that GW have proven to be incompetent in a number of areas.
GW is clearly uninterested in making 40K the tight competitive game some of you want. For 33 years, it's been a breezy, creative, beautiful mess of a ruleset with a narrative focus meant to be played casually with cool miniatures under an indeterminate time length.
They've shown they can write tighter rulesets better suited for tournament play. And they've shown that they can do a decent job with balance even when executing their classic approach to rule writing.
40K sells great and works for them. It ain't changing. If that bothers you after a 33-year track record, who's really to blame for your dissatisfaction?
Well, that's fair...except that in 9th they have gone to tremendously far lengths to rope in the people who WERE trying to make their game competitive (ITC, etc) and getting them on board with a totally standardized system.
It's been clear for a number of years now that GW are interested in making 40k into a competitive game, in addition to a fluffy narrative one you play with friends for a lark. So it's fair to start judging them based on that.
or stop writing rules
if GW is not a gaming company but a model company, stop trying to sell crap as the "best game ever"
either get the model output down if this is the reason for bad rules, or get better at writing rules
but stop using "we are producing too many models per month" as an excuse for bad rules as this as their own desicion and something they can do nothing about it
they had their chance with 8th but did not feel it was necessary but instead increased the amount of models by doubling on Marines
no sympathy here as it was their own decision to do it and if they cannot handle it there is no excuse
GW is a model company, most of their income is model sales and most of their expenses are model production and design. Thus they produce more models to increase income as anything else would be suicidal.
The tabletop game exist as an incentive to increase sales, because people usually like to be able to do something with the plastic they purchase (although there are also those that purchase models for the modeling hobby, not the game). Thus they write rules to play 40k, and although they are quite bad at it, to stop it would also be suicidal.
All we need to do is leverage Machine Learning and Blockchain technology to examine the rules, and then have Computron 40,000 determine the points cost of everything.
ziggurattt wrote: All we need to do is leverage Machine Learning and Blockchain technology to examine the rules, and then have Computron 40,000 determine the points cost of everything.
Games workshop have experimented with a less competitive game with no points values or anything of the sort. It was Age of Sigmar on launch. I didn't play it on release, so I don't know what it was like, but Games workshop did a 180 on it not too long after.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, that's fair...except that in 9th they have gone to tremendously far lengths to rope in the people who WERE trying to make their game competitive (ITC, etc) and getting them on board with a totally standardized system.
It's been clear for a number of years now that GW are interested in making 40k into a competitive game, in addition to a fluffy narrative one you play with friends for a lark. So it's fair to start judging them based on that.
The anti-horde rules like blast make a lot of sense based on that, because hordes are hell for competitive play as they are too slow to play and tournaments need quick games to be viable. One of the reasons hordes are not considered competitive is because competitive rulesets like ITC penalize hordes, because they don't want hordes.
Competitive 40k in 8th edition was honestly pretty good. Just about every army had some representation in the tournament scene and the meta was always changing, which kept things fresh.
There were definitely some low points (Castellans, Iron Hands) but there were also many distinct periods where a bunch of armies were top-tier viable.
I'm confident things will only improve for 9th edition.
The tabletop game exist as an incentive to increase sales, because people usually like to be able to do something with the plastic they purchase (although there are also those that purchase models for the modeling hobby, not the game). Thus they write rules to play 40k, and although they are quite bad at it, to stop it would also be suicidal.
still no excuse why they could not do/try to be better
Well, they are getting better - at least when they don't overrule their own playertesters and release stuff they know is overpowered just for the lols, like they did with the IH supplement.
They've still got a fair ways to go, but they do seem to be slowly moving in the right direction on this stuff.
Which would be an excuse if we talk about a new/fresh company here
but GW is doing it for 30 years and is the Top Company claiming to be the Prosche of Wargaming
Trying and learning is nothing they should get away with as no one would buy a Porsche and say "they still need to learn how to build an engine, but at least they try and use 4 wheels now"
The anti-horde rules like blast make a lot of sense based on that, because hordes are hell for competitive play as they are too slow to play and tournaments need quick games to be viable. One of the reasons hordes are not considered competitive is because competitive rulesets like ITC penalize hordes, because they don't want hordes.
Hordes are not the problem or slowing the game down
a Horde player knows how to speed his gameplay up
re-rolls, single model mechanics, gameplay interruptions slow the game down, nothing which is related to Hordes
slave.entity wrote: Competitive 40k in 8th edition was honestly pretty good. Just about every army had some representation in the tournament scene and the meta was always changing, which kept things fresh.
There were definitely some low points (Castellans, Iron Hands) but there were also many distinct periods where a bunch of armies were top-tier viable.
I'm confident things will only improve for 9th edition.
I am sure "Ynnari = I win button" was fun for everyone involved.
kodos wrote: Which would be an excuse if we talk about a new/fresh company here
but GW is doing it for 30 years and is the Top Company claiming to be the Prosche of Wargaming
Trying and learning is nothing they should get away with as no one would buy a Porsche and say "they still need to learn how to build an engine, but at least they try and use 4 wheels now"
That is why I strongly tend to advocate that people vote with their wallets. If the rules are not well done, stop buying them. The only real impetus for them to change is if the rules don't sell. If the rules sell, then the rules are "good enough (to sell)."
That is why I really applaud people and groups of people, who take on the work for their own rules (like you did in your sig, I see). Sure, those rules won't be perfect either, most likely, but the impetus to improve them can be shown there much more prevalently, especially because they can be a living, growing, evolving rules set.
At this point, why can't we have communities here come up with rules sets? If I had more time, more talent and more knowledge, I might just try it myself with the help of like minded individuals.
Darsath wrote: Games workshop have experimented with a less competitive game with no points values or anything of the sort. It was Age of Sigmar on launch. I didn't play it on release, so I don't know what it was like, but Games workshop did a 180 on it not too long after.
It was great, and the most balanced* I have seen a GW game, ever. And not by a small margin.
*The community stepped in and provided points. We did a better job than GW ever has.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, they are getting better - at least when they don't overrule their own playertesters and release stuff they know is overpowered just for the lols, like they did with the IH supplement.
They've still got a fair ways to go, but they do seem to be slowly moving in the right direction on this stuff.
My thoughts exactly, which is why I try and give them credit where it's due and only take shots where they screwed up.
Speaking of screw ups: I'm still not entirely sure that they screwed up the LoS rule since the internet is known to try and game systems, but I read the entire thing as a conditional statement that gets overruled if we're dealing with multiple units with the "character" keyword so that might be my own biases talking.
I am curious if they'll change the bodyguard rule to be a "counts as 3 or more models for the purposes of Look Out Sir" sort of deal.
kodos wrote: Which would be an excuse if we talk about a new/fresh company here
but GW is doing it for 30 years and is the Top Company claiming to be the Prosche of Wargaming
Trying and learning is nothing they should get away with as no one would buy a Porsche and say "they still need to learn how to build an engine, but at least they try and use 4 wheels now"
The anti-horde rules like blast make a lot of sense based on that, because hordes are hell for competitive play as they are too slow to play and tournaments need quick games to be viable. One of the reasons hordes are not considered competitive is because competitive rulesets like ITC penalize hordes, because they don't want hordes.
Hordes are not the problem or slowing the game down
a Horde player knows how to speed his gameplay up
re-rolls, single model mechanics, gameplay interruptions slow the game down, nothing which is related to Hordes
Except the fact that all of those things are massively exacerbated by large amounts of models.
At this point, why can't we have communities here come up with rules sets? If I had more time, more talent and more knowledge, I might just try it myself with the help of like minded individuals.
people won't accept it as those "ideas" people would come up with will be seen as a step too far and not being 40k any more
I have written rules using Armour modifier, as 40k has them now, during late 5th Edition. It was said that such rule will kill the game and not being worth playing any more
I have added Cover as a bonus to armour, while in addition used special rules as "to hit" modifier for fast units, was said to be a terrible mechanic and 40k will never use such stupid rules
And the worst crime I have done was treating vehicles the same way as other models (armour saves, health points, no facings) which I had to remove because it was unacceptable and needed to come up with something different (a workaround that did the same but just looked like vehicle armour is different)
while there is no stupid mechanic or rule that won't be seen as big improvement and making everything better if it comes from GW itself
Darsath wrote: Games workshop have experimented with a less competitive game with no points values or anything of the sort. It was Age of Sigmar on launch. I didn't play it on release, so I don't know what it was like, but Games workshop did a 180 on it not too long after.
It was great, and the most balanced* I have seen a GW game, ever. And not by a small margin.
*The community stepped in and provided points. We did a better job than GW ever has.
Yeah, I mean, the amount of hours that even a small community can put in vastly outweighs what any development or play-testing team can put in. Sure, "professionals" might know some things here or there that a community might not, but the number of play-hours, test-hours, communities can do is beyond what any company could pay anyone to do realistically.
I can jokingly imagine the following meeting:
GW Employee 1: We'll just drop points, they are never accurate anyway!
GW Employee 2: What are they going to do, make their own? Community: *Makes best points costing ever.*
GW:
That's how you effect change though, you demonstrate it. What could they have done there? Pretend the community points costing wasn't happening? No, they pretty much had to compete in the points costing game. No competition, no likely change, honestly.
I mean, perhaps I should just get off my soap-box here, but 9 editions and what 3 Apocalypse iterations, plus Epic and whatever other supplemental rules sources we've had and somehow, out of all that, we could not syncreticly devise notionally "better" rules sets, based on subjective criteria? Seems unlikely. We could probably come up with at least 3 different rules sets, one to focus on ideal "gameness," one on more "simulation" and even one that is a hybrid of the two. And who knows how many others, if we really tried. But perhaps I am just delusional.
Except the fact that all of those things are massively exacerbated by large amounts of models.
usually elite armies have more of those
but yet the Ork players I know and have seen playing were not slower and sometimes even faster than the Marine players
although they had to move more models and roll more dice
but units bases, coloured dice (5 per colour), preparing turing opponet acting instead of waiting helps a lot
Darsath wrote: Games workshop have experimented with a less competitive game with no points values or anything of the sort. It was Age of Sigmar on launch. I didn't play it on release, so I don't know what it was like, but Games workshop did a 180 on it not too long after.
It was great, and the most balanced* I have seen a GW game, ever. And not by a small margin.
*The community stepped in and provided points. We did a better job than GW ever has.
Yeah, I mean, the amount of hours that even a small community can put in vastly outweighs what any development or play-testing team can put in. Sure, "professionals" might know some things here or there that a community might not, but the number of play-hours, test-hours, communities can do is beyond what any company could pay anyone to do realistically.
I can jokingly imagine the following meeting:
GW Employee 1: We'll just drop points, they are never accurate anyway!
GW Employee 2: What are they going to do, make their own? Community: *Makes best points costing ever.*
GW:
That's how you effect change though, you demonstrate it. What could they have done there? Pretend the community points costing wasn't happening? No, they pretty much had to compete in the points costing game. No competition, no likely change, honestly.
I mean, perhaps I should just get off my soap-box here, but 9 editions and what 3 Apocalypse iterations, plus Epic and whatever other supplemental rules sources we've had and somehow, out of all that, we could not syncreticly devise notionally "better" rules sets, based on subjective criteria? Seems unlikely. We could probably come up with at least 3 different rules sets, one to focus on ideal "gameness," one on more "simulation" and even one that is a hybrid of the two. And who knows how many others, if we really tried. But perhaps I am just delusional.
You are. 'Community' rulesets happen. And they're junk. They're consistently junk for completely predictable reasons, as thousands of voices pull in a thousand different directions each according to their own whims and prejudices
Loud voices rise to the top, and pull things in fewer directions, and others react out of spite or indifference, and vital voices drop because they just don't have the time to deal with this crap anymore and the project fails and drops off.
And frankly the reception for using these 'community' (I keep using that in quotes because so many people get excluded that it obviously isn't ever a community effort) is poor. You can talk a small D&D group into using houserules for the length of a campaign. You can do something similar for a half-dozen wargamers playing every weekend in the same garage. But you can't on a large scale- people just don't want to deal with the politics of it, they just want to use the rules out of the box and play the game. If its too awful they won't, but they don't want to put the kind of effort in a 'community' ruleset requires.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, that's fair...except that in 9th they have gone to tremendously far lengths to rope in the people who WERE trying to make their game competitive (ITC, etc) and getting them on board with a totally standardized system.
It's been clear for a number of years now that GW are interested in making 40k into a competitive game, in addition to a fluffy narrative one you play with friends for a lark. So it's fair to start judging them based on that.
You mean the points values that they inconveniently include at the back of the book compared to the power levels they put right in the datasheets? That will drive the new narrative system in 9th? And we're talking about the system with endless hundreds of datasheets and faction and subfaction rules that are expanding with no end in sight? Ballooning game time lengths and requiring a stack of books?
You're right that they're throwing bones to the competitive crowd. But that's a vastly different thing than building the overall product for that audience. If that was the goal, they'd do a hundred things differently. But kids and casuals are a huge part of their 40K business and will always be prominent in GW's thinking. There will always be a square peg/round hole element to playing 40K competitively. That was true back when I was actively playing in tourneys, and it seems especially true now given the sheer complexity and scope of the game.
AT is my focus these days. Although the rules are written in a classic GW narrative style, the rules are fairly tight and intuitive/easy to teach, the balance pretty good (there was one major outlier than they FAQed quickly), and the gameplay is very tactical and engaging with alternating activations and lots of maneuver with a resource management element. And the models are great. Scratches my itches. These days when I go to play 40K...it just feels HEAVY, you know? And most of my 40K playing is playing very casually with my oldest. I still have fun with it, but it is what it is.
TL;DR -- People can obviously have fun with 40K however they want, and clearly GW is throwing more bones to matched play. But I think the overall system and development approach is less suited than ever for competitive play, so it's an upstream swimming exercise.
kodos wrote: while there is no stupid mechanic or rule that won't be seen as big improvement and making everything better if it comes from GW itself
Yeah, the "appeal to authority" fallacy in full force there.
It's a shame really, because there likely are so many cool things we could do with our toys, if people didn't put blinders on and think there is an "authority-given" "objectively" correct way to play with them.
I've seen the sort of work that comes out of the house rules, and while there is some gold there, there is also a ton of silt to filter through to find it.
kodos wrote: Which would be an excuse if we talk about a new/fresh company here
but GW is doing it for 30 years and is the Top Company claiming to be the Prosche of Wargaming
Trying and learning is nothing they should get away with as no one would buy a Porsche and say "they still need to learn how to build an engine, but at least they try and use 4 wheels now"
sieGermans wrote: I play both MTG and WH40k. Hands down, Magic is more complex to balance for Vintage (1.0) [which is what allows for all cards, bar a comparatively small ban list] than WH40k. Yet, the most played format, Standard (2.0), has about 2500 to 3000 card interactions at most and is far less so.
Again though, the point is not balance, the point is rules clarity.
How many times in a MTG game, even a Vintage-legal game, is the game state unclear, or are the interactions unclear? And in those cases, how many are where the formal, Comprehensive rules unable to give a definitive solution, so much so, that RAI must come into play? (I think the answer is vanishingly small, honestly.)
That is what I am discussing. The formality of the rules, as it relates to clarity in how they would interact with each other. It has nothing to do with balance in any way, shape or form. Balance has nothing to do with formality or clarity. I am only discussing the latter two.
I think you mistook my point--we aren't disagreeing here in terms of this premise.
I was helping to clarify misunderstandings about how complex Magic is versus Warhammer 40k (Vintage Magic is more, Standard and Limited [the default competitive formats] Magic is less).
Additionally, and as a point of clarification of the facts only, I don't disagree that Magic has far far fewer unclear rules interactions resolved via fiat (i.e., FAQ/clarification). However I could draw up a finite (not a typo: it isn't infinite) number of niche examples to prove that Magic can have unclear situations based on its rules (e.g., Opalesence and Humility, Chains of Mephisotopholes and Brainstorm, Affinity for [x] and sacrificing [x] to pay costs, etc.).
Where we [might?] be disagreeing is that the business model that supports Magic's far more robust design/development/release cycle is not adoptable by GW due to substantial differences in Overhead costs associated to the game productions.
I'll repeat here what I said earlier:
However the costs for production, overheads, shipping, and even business model are totally incomparable. Magic has a pennies per card manufacturing cost, a wider distribution channel, a deeper base of engaged customers, and a higher product turnover due to having virtually invented the "loot chest" business model at scale. Their healthier margins support a more expensive overhead.
And whilst we might all wish that GW could turn its record profits back into the product full-bore, the reality is that GW has had a shaky position of dominance over the last 20 years, with numerous upstart companies coming along with the serious potential of unseating them.
sieGermans wrote: Additionally, and as a point of clarification of the facts only, I don't disagree that Magic has far far fewer unclear rules interactions resolved via fiat (i.e., FAQ/clarification). However I could draw up a finite (not a typo: it isn't infinite) number of niche examples to prove that Magic can have unclear situations based on its rules (e.g., Opalesence and Humility, Chains of Mephisotopholes and Brainstorm, Affinity for [x] and sacrificing [x] to pay costs, etc.).
Well, I am going to disagree there. While those can be confusing, to someone who is not well versed in Layers, or in how replacement effects are applied, or in the order of determining and paying costs, the Comprehensive rules gives you the definitive answer in all those cases. What I meant by clear is, that there is no "interpretation" there. How Layers work in MTG is not a case where one must divine the intent of the rules and interpret from there, it's rather a case where you simply understand the what the formal rules prescribe and execute it. The cases you provide, again, are in fact confusing for those who are not familiar with the formal rules, but when presented with them, arguing what should happen is like arguing what 2+2 ought to be. There are very few cases where the formal rules do not give a clear-cut answer, it just might take a bit of research to see why what is prescribed is what it is.
So, indeed, I was not succinct enough in what I meant by clear, so my apologies for that.
sieGermans wrote: Where we [might?] be disagreeing is that the business model that supports Magic's far more robust design/development/release cycle is not adoptable by GW due to substantial differences in Overhead costs associated to the game productions.
Well, here I am honestly not sure. They surely are different, but I don't think that really dictates what must be the case for the rules themselves. I think the bigger part is that Magic rules are free and always have been, where GW charges for theirs. Justifiably or not, and for whatever reason it is done, that makes a tremendous difference most likely.
I personally wish the game had a cap on dice rolls. The numbers get ridiculous, then add rerolls and it gets out of hand. No way should any unit be rolling 120 dice. Personally, I think it should max at 30 per unit per action. Have more than that, doesn't matter, that's your max. Yes, this would mean certain units should be made more effective so that many rolls isn't necessary.
Speed up the game.
bullyboy wrote: I personally wish the game had a cap on dice rolls. The numbers get ridiculous, then add rerolls and it gets out of hand. No way should any unit be rolling 120 dice. Personally, I think it should max at 30 per unit per action. Have more than that, doesn't matter, that's your max. Yes, this would mean certain units should be made more effective so that many rolls isn't necessary.
Speed up the game.
Are you a carnival worker?
Do you have small hands?
Do you smell like cabbage?
Justbkidding , most games I see are about throwing tons of dice, less tactics and more math hammer.
Things like 6 aggressors rolling 140 dice (more than that actually since you gotta roll the dice to see how many dice you roll...what a perfect metaphor) are awful. It adds no fun whatsoever, just tedium.
yukishiro1 wrote: Things like 6 aggressors rolling 140 dice (more than that actually since you gotta roll the dice to see how many dice you roll...what a perfect metaphor) are awful. It adds no fun whatsoever, just tedium.
Again the issur mainly revolves around marines specifically primaris and their ever balloning buckets of dice, the FRFSRF conscript blob or Slaneshy cultists blob was kind of a joke, vut marines now use sinilar or more dice and have rerolls out the wazzo.
I dont think I have ever seen someone shoot every weapon on a repulsor, atleast not legally, Aggressors another example of everything dies with enough dice and rerolls.
slave.entity wrote: Competitive 40k in 8th edition was honestly pretty good. Just about every army had some representation in the tournament scene and the meta was always changing, which kept things fresh.
There were definitely some low points (Castellans, Iron Hands) but there were also many distinct periods where a bunch of armies were top-tier viable.
I'm confident things will only improve for 9th edition.
I am sure "Ynnari = I win button" was fun for everyone involved.
Ynnari was definitely broken. Still I don't think that year was anywhere near as bad as the sheer number of Castellans at LVO 2019 or Iron Hands at LVO 2020.
And at the GT level there were tons of other factions that enjoyed dominance over the past 3 years. I'm not much of a tourney player but even just following the competitive scene was a lot of fun.
So it seems after our brief interlude with new information, introspection and actual 9th Ed insight from the Sisters article, we're back to the trite and meaningless Faction Focus articles we have expected.
GW wrote:They’re mean, they’re green and, in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, they’ll be making a scene. Longtime Grand Tournaments player and Orks expert Matt Root is here with his advice on how to get your Waaagh! on.
Aiight Matty boy, let's see what exciting new things you can tell us about the Orks!
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:One of the most striking changes is to vehicles. Orks units like the Megatrakk Scrapjet are deadly both in shooting and in combat, but previously, you had to choose one or the other because being stuck in combat stopped you from shooting. In the new edition, this is no longer the case – you can unload rokkits with malicious glee as you charge towards your opponent’s lines, and if you get stuck in combat, you can still keep shooting with your other weapons!*
Or, to put it another way, "The new vehicle rules that everyone can use can also be used by the Orks! WOW!".
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:The new terrain rules will also be appreciated by all Orks players. With terrain having clearly defined features, you don’t have to worry about your opponent seeing through a crack in the wall to shoot your entire Boyz squad.
Or, to put it another way, "The new terrain rules that everyone can use can also be used by the Orks! WOW!".
I guess it's time to reprint a bunch of rules we already know, right?
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Burna-bommers were already good, but the changes to Flyers in the new edition make them even better (take two!).
Or, to put it another way, "The new terrain flyer rules that everyone can use can also be used by the Orks! WOW!".
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:While they’re great flying around immolating targets, they’re even better if someone is foolish enough to shoot it down. Unlike most other exploding vehicles, Burna-bommers explode on a 4+ instead of a 6+, and they do 3 mortal wounds instead of D3.
And this has what to do with 9th?
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Skorcha missiles are also Blast weapons in the new edition...
Actual new information. Incredible.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:In the new edition, thanks to the way that Detachments work, all armies start with the same Command points.
Thanks. Pretty sure we've known that for two weeks now.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:That means that if you don’t want to take loads of Gretchin troops, you don’t have to!** You want an army filled with nothing but Meganobz and Warbosses? You can have it and still have all the Command points you’ll need. Which you can then spend back on your Meganobz to make them hit even harder in combat.
Followed by a strat that already exists. This would have been a great place to give a look into the way that detachments and formations work, but no, we'll just reiterate that everyone gets the same amount of CP now. WOW!
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:The change in the overwatch rules will also help out the Meganobz. If you charge your opponent’s entire army currently, they essentially get a free shooting phase. In the new edition, they will have to choose a unit to shoot with and pay the necessary cost in Command points. This means more of your green tide will make it to combat.
Or, to put it another way, "The changes to Overwatch that impacts everyone also impacts the Orks! WOW!". Well duh.
GW wrote:There’s a lot to be excited about, and even more to look forward to.
The Sorcerer on the left can be shot. The Sorcerer on the right cannot be shot.
Who here can guess the reason why?
Solution: The Left is secretly this scenario
Spoiler:
As the shell howls through the air, smoke trailing its descent, the Sorcerer looks to his left and to his right, knowing that at least one of the cultists surrounding him will push him out of the way, screaming, "Look out, sir!"
What the Sorcerer fails to realize is that the six men surrounding him have been separated from their own units and have no idea what is going on. In their confusion, looking back and forth between each other, the shell lands squarely atop the Sorcerer's position, vaporizing him and replacing him with a smoldering crater. Uncovering their eyes from the blast, the cultists check that each other are unharmed, shrug at one another, and then scurry off towards the closest objective, still not quite clear about what they're supposed to be doing.
puma713 wrote: What the Sorcerer fails to realize is that the six men surrounding him have been separated from their own units and have no idea what is going on. In their confusion, looking back and forth between each other, the shell lands squarely atop the Sorcerer's position, vaporizing him and replacing him with a smoldering crater. Uncovering their eyes from the blast, the cultists check that each other are unharmed, shrug at one another, and then scurry off towards the closest objective, still not quite clear about what they're supposed to be doing.[/i]
In the confusion, Cultist Rethkar looks to Cultist Rakhter and remarks, 'Why are there a third less of us than before?'."
Yeah, it's a weird edge case, but you can argue weird edge cases for any ruleset.
Listened to the Signals from the Frontline podcast today and my biggest take away from that was Reese being extremely clear that we don't have all the rules and the game doesn't work like how some of the internet salt miners claim it will. That was recorded on Wens so no LoS talk, but still, I think it's a fair take that the game will likely be different than we currently expect and some of the panic is likely a bit premature.
Since GW said they'd be defining Hordes in the book, I was honestly hoping we'd see some kind of Horde keyword that gives some kind of bonus to Horde units for their model count, but I suspect that their "define hordes" claim might be more just a way to say "define larger units inside of the blast rule" specifically. Which would be a damn shame in all honesty.
But maybe future codexes might fix that with AoS style buffs like +1 attack for every 10 models over the first 10, or something.
Right now while Obscuring does help hordes cross the table safer, it doesn't mitigate all the other issues hordes face in 8th, not to mention the addition of blast weapons in 9th to boot. Which is a damn shame because I love the look of a horde army on the table.It's just that right now there isn't a lot of reasons to take hordes over MSU.
Maybe some units will get additional "actions" I'd feel better about a Cultist price hike if they could start performing rituals/sacrifices for summoning points etc.
Darsath wrote: Games workshop have experimented with a less competitive game with no points values or anything of the sort. It was Age of Sigmar on launch. I didn't play it on release, so I don't know what it was like, but Games workshop did a 180 on it not too long after.
It was great, and the most balanced* I have seen a GW game, ever. And not by a small margin.
*The community stepped in and provided points. We did a better job than GW ever has.
Yeah, I mean, the amount of hours that even a small community can put in vastly outweighs what any development or play-testing team can put in. Sure, "professionals" might know some things here or there that a community might not, but the number of play-hours, test-hours, communities can do is beyond what any company could pay anyone to do realistically.
I can jokingly imagine the following meeting:
GW Employee 1: We'll just drop points, they are never accurate anyway!
GW Employee 2: What are they going to do, make their own? Community: *Makes best points costing ever.*
GW:
That's how you effect change though, you demonstrate it. What could they have done there? Pretend the community points costing wasn't happening? No, they pretty much had to compete in the points costing game. No competition, no likely change, honestly.
I mean, perhaps I should just get off my soap-box here, but 9 editions and what 3 Apocalypse iterations, plus Epic and whatever other supplemental rules sources we've had and somehow, out of all that, we could not syncreticly devise notionally "better" rules sets, based on subjective criteria? Seems unlikely. We could probably come up with at least 3 different rules sets, one to focus on ideal "gameness," one on more "simulation" and even one that is a hybrid of the two. And who knows how many others, if we really tried. But perhaps I am just delusional.
There were three major sets of points that were popular, all of them were one person running the scene and collecting feedback to make changes in their spare time. Two of those had vastly better balance than GW has ever had, while the third was misbalanced it had intentionally undercosted certain elements to encourage their use. None of them had a vast amount of man hours put into them, they were mathematical formulas to determine a base value from stats, modified by the creator to account for subjective elements, then subsequently modified every month or so based on player feedback. It was not anything GW could not achieve themselves. Hell they could just ask the creators of these systems to do it again, but for them. But for whatever reasons, be they apathy, delusion, pride, profit, or something else, they choose not to produce a well-balanced game. They choose not to.
Eldarain wrote: Maybe some units will get additional "actions" I'd feel better about a Cultist price hike if they could start performing rituals/sacrifices for summoning points etc.
We know we'll be seeing Actions as a standard mechanic to score, and they'll be adding actions into the codexes that reflect that faction's goals (so like the missions we currently see in the books I guess?) but I don't know if we'll see actions as a standard part of unit design.
MSU units like Cultists and Gretchin still have value for spamming to be cheap action taking units, but honestly I just haven't seen much out of this mess to suggest the game will give hordes the tools they need to be fun to play.
Listened to the Signals from the Frontline podcast today and my biggest take away from that was Reese being extremely clear that we don't have all the rules and the game doesn't work like how some of the internet salt miners claim it will. That was recorded on Wens so no LoS talk, but still, I think it's a fair take that the game will likely be different than we currently expect and some of the panic is likely a bit premature.
Then GW is to blame for previewing the rules in a bad way. They should present them so we understand how they really work. Premature panic ? Its GW. I still expect badly written, ambiguous, complicated rules. See look out sir. Terrain rules will be horrible. You will need a piece of paper to write down every trait for every piece of terrain, 50-100 traits for 10-15 pieces of terrain
Listened to the Signals from the Frontline podcast today and my biggest take away from that was Reese being extremely clear that we don't have all the rules and the game doesn't work like how some of the internet salt miners claim it will. That was recorded on Wens so no LoS talk, but still, I think it's a fair take that the game will likely be different than we currently expect and some of the panic is likely a bit premature.
Then GW is to blame for previewing the rules in a bad way. They should present them so we understand how they really work. Premature panic ? Its GW. I still expect badly written, ambiguous, complicated rules. See look out sir. Terrain rules will be horrible. You will need a piece of paper to write down every trait for every piece of terrain, 50-100 traits for 10-15 pieces of terrain
GW is doing what it needs to in order to keep hype going. I've said it before, but this "boiling pot" method has us clicking in to watch the stream, read the articles and then spend the rest of the day arguing over the scraps they give us, thus keeping the hype going, far better than more complete reveals would do.
I've said I don't read Look out Sir the same way people have in order to create strange scenarios, but I may be unconsciously reading intent over RAW on that one.
And you're making terrain too complicated. They define types of terrain with OPTIONAL RULES that you can use. You can decide on different rules if you'd like but really if you point at something and say "that's a ruin" it's already got a defined list of rules to work with that doesn't require extra bookkeeping. Stop making this harder than it has to be.
And expect whatever you'd like but actual tournament players who're known for taking shots at GW for their screw ups (like the TTT guys) have said the rules are pretty good, so I'm going to assume that they're not blowing smoke and ruining their credibility over a single release.
but GW is doing it for 30 years and is the Top Company claiming to be the Prosche of Wargaming
I'm 90% sure that no one from GW ever said that and you've twisted a well known quote to fit your argument.
right, it is a Kirby quote, so lets go with the current one "Games Workshop is the largest and the most successful tabletop fantasy and futuristic battle-games company in the world"
so the largest battle-gamnes company in the world is not able to write good rules because their model department relase more models than the rules department can handle
the argument that GW needs sympathie and not called out for the poor product they make because they are just a small model company and does not have the resources to do it and/or still need to learn but at least they try, falls appart as soon as you read what they say about themself
it is what it is, there is no excuse for bad written, poor rules from GW.
Listened to the Signals from the Frontline podcast today and my biggest take away from that was Reese being extremely clear that we don't have all the rules and the game doesn't work like how some of the internet salt miners claim it will. That was recorded on Wens so no LoS talk, but still, I think it's a fair take that the game will likely be different than we currently expect and some of the panic is likely a bit premature..
he also said some time ago that 9th will be nothing like 8th, so panic depends on what people want and like
if someone really loves 8th, and just wanted and updated version, panic is reasonable as not matter if it gets better or not, the game he/she/it loves is gone
From what I've seen, 9th has a lot of the same bones as 8th, but it's shaping up to be a different animal. Like a Chimpanzee compared a Gorilla, similar in a lot of waya, but different in more.
I'm pretty excited for it, personally. There looks to be a whole lot there to have fun with. Caveat being I do not treat matched play seriously or have an expectation for it to function properly; it's just a tool in the box so to speak.
I've said I don't read Look out Sir the same way people have in order to create strange scenarios, but I may be unconsciously reading intent over RAW on that one.
Its a complicated, badly written, ambiguous rule. Perfect example how GW rules are.
And you're making terrain too complicated. They define types of terrain with OPTIONAL RULES that you can use. You can decide on different rules if you'd like but really if you point at something and say "that's a ruin" it's already got a defined list of rules to work with that doesn't require extra bookkeeping. Stop making this harder than it has to be.
There is no defined terrain, it will be guidelines in the rulebook, you can choose to use those, but they arent mandatory. If your opponent doesnt like some of those suggested traits there is room for argument.
And expect whatever you'd like but actual tournament players who're known for taking shots at GW for their screw ups (like the TTT guys) have said the rules are pretty good, so I'm going to assume that they're not blowing smoke and ruining their credibility over a single release.
I respect the TTT guys, and it gives me a little bit of hope. But, they are biased, they are fanatic 40k players, of course they like it. Its new, its exciting. However, GW usually cannot write simple, easily playable rules.
Jadenim wrote: Am I misreading it, or is one of those Ork stratagems “pay a command point to destroy one of your own flyers in the vain hope it will hit the enemy”?!
it is not new, and yes instead of rolling for explode you pay 1 CP to get that one for sure
and as I was told it is the best way orks have to Alpha Strike
Jadenim wrote: Am I misreading it, or is one of those Ork stratagems “pay a command point to destroy one of your own flyers in the vain hope it will hit the enemy”?!
it is not new, and yes instead of rolling for explode you pay 1 CP to get that one for sure
and as I was told it is the best way orks have to Alpha Strike
you combine it with the burnabomba, which detonatees with a guaranteed 3 mortals instead of D3 in a radius.
Yes kamikaze burna bombas are a thing.
It's probably one of the best use if you dropped the payload off a burna bomba.
I find it funny that they address Meganobz as a "key" unit because, in spite of their 2+ save, having T4 and no invul still makes them pretty squishy for a supposedly elite option.
Jadenim wrote: Am I misreading it, or is one of those Ork stratagems “pay a command point to destroy one of your own flyers in the vain hope it will hit the enemy”?!
it is not new, and yes instead of rolling for explode you pay 1 CP to get that one for sure
and as I was told it is the best way orks have to Alpha Strike
Sisters have a similar one to make Immolators auto explode and I think Knights do as well.
Jadenim wrote: Am I misreading it, or is one of those Ork stratagems “pay a command point to destroy one of your own flyers in the vain hope it will hit the enemy”?!
it is not new, and yes instead of rolling for explode you pay 1 CP to get that one for sure
and as I was told it is the best way orks have to Alpha Strike
Sisters have a similar one to make Immolators auto explode and I think Knights do as well.
So do Deathguard. But the difference is the Ork one makes it reduce to 0 wounds and explode.
The DG, Knights and Sisters can only be used after it has reached 0 wounds.
Ok this is hilarious. The ork don't wait until the plane is wasted and decide "Feth it, I'll go down with a bang" like Sisters or Knights do. He is like "Yeah, my plane is like a big rocket, let's send it right at the enemy" lol.
We may actually get the rules a bit earlier than the release, iirc the app goes live on the day preorders open, and the app may be fully equip with rules and new power levels.
I've said I don't read Look out Sir the same way people have in order to create strange scenarios, but I may be unconsciously reading intent over RAW on that one.
Its a complicated, badly written, ambiguous rule. Perfect example how GW rules are.
And you're making terrain too complicated. They define types of terrain with OPTIONAL RULES that you can use. You can decide on different rules if you'd like but really if you point at something and say "that's a ruin" it's already got a defined list of rules to work with that doesn't require extra bookkeeping. Stop making this harder than it has to be.
There is no defined terrain, it will be guidelines in the rulebook, you can choose to use those, but they arent mandatory. If your opponent doesnt like some of those suggested traits there is room for argument.
And expect whatever you'd like but actual tournament players who're known for taking shots at GW for their screw ups (like the TTT guys) have said the rules are pretty good, so I'm going to assume that they're not blowing smoke and ruining their credibility over a single release.
I respect the TTT guys, and it gives me a little bit of hope. But, they are biased, they are fanatic 40k players, of course they like it. Its new, its exciting. However, GW usually cannot write simple, easily playable rules.
It's by presenting enough information that you get an idea of the rule, but not the full context. Like the Look Out Sir. It's clear they're not showing the more detailed examples of how it works that clear up the confusion people have.
And I don't see what's so messy with Look Out Sir. My reading of it is that you are protected by monsters, vehicles, or units of 3 or more models within 3" as long as they're closer to the shooting unit and aren't characters. I'm sure someone will pop up to tell me I'm wrong, but that's how I read it and that's what seems to be the intent.
And yes, there are guidelines, but unless you're creating your own custom terrain that you need to assign keywords to, why wouldn't you use those guidelines and make the game flow easier for yourself rather than harder? Complaining about self-imposed bookkeeping is not GW's fault.
As for the salt miner's take on GW's ability to write rules, I've seen rules arguements crop up over rules that were clearly written and defined so honestly I'm going to have to disagree. The internet has taught me that even perfectly clear rules can be misunderstood, or misinterpreted, especially when dealing with folks who argue in bad faith.
The Sorcerer on the left can be shot. The Sorcerer on the right cannot be shot.
Who here can guess the reason why?
Solution: The Left is secretly this scenario
Spoiler:
So this is a post mocking how a precisely defined rule will always result in edge cases - like you could have those cultists 3.000" away and 3.001" away and make the same post - so what youd prefer is a rule where both players would just reasonably agree that a character could or could not be shot at?
diepotato47 wrote: We may actually get the rules a bit earlier than the release, iirc the app goes live on the day preorders open, and the app may be fully equip with rules and new power levels.
Honestly I'm hoping we see the full free rules go live on WHC as well when the pre-order pops up.
diepotato47 wrote: We may actually get the rules a bit earlier than the release, iirc the app goes live on the day preorders open, and the app may be fully equip with rules and new power levels.
Honestly I'm hoping we see the full free rules go live on WHC as well when the pre-order pops up.
I think you'll be sadly disappointed, in all honesty while the app goes live on the preorder date I'm not exactly sure how they intend it to work as they have aaid the new codex's will come with a code or such to unlock the digital version of the rules so we may even get an app that's esentially useless? Though I am hoping what will happen is the 8th edition hold over rules will be enabled free/ easily someway then as the ninth edition books come out they will have a QR code or some sort of key to unlock the rules.
diepotato47 wrote: We may actually get the rules a bit earlier than the release, iirc the app goes live on the day preorders open, and the app may be fully equip with rules and new power levels.
Honestly I'm hoping we see the full free rules go live on WHC as well when the pre-order pops up.
I think you'll be sadly disappointed, in all honesty while the app goes live on the preorder date I'm not exactly sure how they intend it to work as they have aaid the new codex's will come with a code or such to unlock the digital version of the rules so we may even get an app that's esentially useless? Though I am hoping what will happen is the 8th edition hold over rules will be enabled free/ easily someway then as the ninth edition books come out they will have a QR code or some sort of key to unlock the rules.
QR codes are likely how they'll unlock the books.
And I'm not sure why I'd be disappointed, if they have the free core rules on the app like the AoS one does, then they should be online on the WHC site for download as well.
Do many people actually play using "Power Levels" (and is there really any way to know this for sure?) and will "Power Levels" be continuing into 40K 9th?
Alpharius wrote: Do many people actually play using "Power Levels" (and is there really any way to know this for sure?) and will "Power Levels" be continuing into 40K 9th?
Yes, 9th will have PL for Narrative games, it was mentioned in the Crusade article. The only groups I know of to use PL as the "norm" are The Narrative Guys for their events(which I haven't seen any issues occurring since it attracts a certain style of player) and apparently Kan's group uses/used them?
The Sorcerer on the left can be shot. The Sorcerer on the right cannot be shot.
Who here can guess the reason why?
Solution: The Left is secretly this scenario
Spoiler:
So this is a post mocking how a precisely defined rule will always result in edge cases - like you could have those cultists 3.000" away and 3.001" away and make the same post - so what youd prefer is a rule where both players would just reasonably agree that a character could or could not be shot at?
Alpharius wrote: Do many people actually play using "Power Levels" (and is there really any way to know this for sure?) and will "Power Levels" be continuing into 40K 9th?
Yes to both counts. GW has said they'll be doing updates to PL, just not as often as points which will make them more balanced as the game goes forward.
Jadenim wrote: Am I misreading it, or is one of those Ork stratagems “pay a command point to destroy one of your own flyers in the vain hope it will hit the enemy”?!
Not in "vain hope". You move your bommer in the middle of the enemy army, drop your bomb and then have it crash right there, cause flat 3 mortal wounds to every single unit, including characters, within 6" of the flyer's base. It's an extremely powerful tool and has won games for me single-handedly when my opponent wasn't careful.
Jadenim wrote: Am I misreading it, or is one of those Ork stratagems “pay a command point to destroy one of your own flyers in the vain hope it will hit the enemy”?!
Not in "vain hope". You move your bommer in the middle of the enemy army, drop your bomb and then have it crash right there, cause flat 3 mortal wounds to every single unit, including characters, within 6" of the flyer's base. It's an extremely powerful tool and has won games for me single-handedly when my opponent wasn't careful.
Oh, so you can still attack? Strange, I thought you had to drop bombs in the shooting phase for a minute.
That does sound like a useful strat. Ork flyers aren't known for their resilience, so anything going on a bombing run is going to die anyway.
diepotato47 wrote: We may actually get the rules a bit earlier than the release, iirc the app goes live on the day preorders open, and the app may be fully equip with rules and new power levels.
Honestly I'm hoping we see the full free rules go live on WHC as well when the pre-order pops up.
I think you'll be sadly disappointed, in all honesty while the app goes live on the preorder date I'm not exactly sure how they intend it to work as they have aaid the new codex's will come with a code or such to unlock the digital version of the rules so we may even get an app that's esentially useless? Though I am hoping what will happen is the 8th edition hold over rules will be enabled free/ easily someway then as the ninth edition books come out they will have a QR code or some sort of key to unlock the rules.
QR codes are likely how they'll unlock the books.
And I'm not sure why I'd be disappointed, if they have the free core rules on the app like the AoS one does, then they should be online on the WHC site for download as well.
I think the core rules will be in the App but I suspect that's where they will stay to push the App if that makes sense.
The Sorcerer on the left can be shot. The Sorcerer on the right cannot be shot.
Who here can guess the reason why?
Solution: The Left is secretly this scenario
Spoiler:
So this is a post mocking how a precisely defined rule will always result in edge cases - like you could have those cultists 3.000" away and 3.001" away and make the same post - so what youd prefer is a rule where both players would just reasonably agree that a character could or could not be shot at?
think it was just a quiz
Then you must not be familiar with BCB's reputation. He's an absurdist.
Alpharius wrote: Do many people actually play using "Power Levels" (and is there really any way to know this for sure?) and will "Power Levels" be continuing into 40K 9th?
Yes, 9th will have PL for Narrative games, it was mentioned in the Crusade article. The only groups I know of to use PL as the "norm" are The Narrative Guys for their events(which I haven't seen any issues occurring since it attracts a certain style of player) and apparently Kan's group uses/used them?
Yepperdoodles, but we're not exactly a huge group. It's basically just people that got tired of the style of some gamers locally to show up announcing to the whole store that they were "banned from playing with other groups" because of rules disputes so they had to get pickup games in order to do tournament prep(despite not being registered for the events in question, cause I started to ask after the first time it happened to me)...after arranging the pickup game as a friendly game.
Now, we just basically ask upfront "Are you cool with playing Power instead of Points? I don't have/couldn't get Chapter Approved from the shop I like to go to.". People interested in actually playing a game will tend to be cool with it, people out to just copypasta tourney lists tend to freak out.
GW wrote:As well as championing the use of ‘pure’ Death Guard armies, uncorrupted by the ‘clean taint’ of allies...
Fun fact: The Death Guard can take units from their own Codex and still lose their army abilities. So much for "pure" without any allies. Moving on...
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:My favorite change of the new edition is how many more Command points the servants of the Plague God have at their disposal.
You mean to say that the general new rules for CP apply to Deathguard? Un-fething-believable! Not a strong start kids...
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:With the new edition’s matched play missions, it’s more important than ever to keep sight of your objectives.
Hang on... what did GW say about this guy?
"...Sam is a well established tournament organiser and a regular on the top tables and podiums of events across the USA. "
And he was losing sight of his objectives in 8th?
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:My Daemon Engines, Terminators and Characters will confidently hold the center of the battlefield while I grind down the enemy in a battle of attrition, leaving my Poxwalkers and Plague Marines free to take advantage of the terrain to advance and claim objectives.
That literally has nothing to do with 9th. That's just your overall strategy for playing your army.
GW wrote:Sam’s not done yet...
Did... did he start? 'Cause he wasn't really told us anything yet.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Under the new rules, my Plagueburst Crawlers are just as deadly with their plaguespitters even while locked in combat.
You mean to say that the general new rules for Vehicles also apply to Deathguard vehicles? Un-fething-believable!
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Not only that, but now my Crawlers can fire their nasty plagueburst mortars (which are now Blast weapons too) on the move without suffering a hit penalty!
Who'da thunk it that a mortar would end up being a blast weapon in the new edition. What a revelation.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them.
But that's a rule they already have. What relevance is this to 9th?
These previews are just so bad. And this one stinks.
Geddit? Stinks? Because it's about Nurg... never mind...
Nothing new there that I spotted at least. These articles are feeling more and more like a "here's what you can expect to be able to do with your army in the new edition" over any real chunky rules info.
Kind of a "chill out, your army will work how it does now, but it'll benefit from X, Y, and Z rules we gave you previews on" sort of deal over real info (unfortunately).
The previews are basically all just "hey guys! good news! this army gets to benefit from the generic rule that everyone else gets to benefit too because it's a generic rule! shocking, eh?"
You guys need to read better for those nuggets. GW just snnnnneaking in those little rules hints into the faction focuses like candy.
"Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them. "
Player who's turn it ISN'T gets to fight first (non charges). That's a small, but pretty impactful change.
Yeah, that seems like a very weird change if it's not a screw-up. Seems like it just encourages you to fall back even more...because if you stay in combat, now you not only can't shoot, you also have to let your opponent fight first.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, that seems like a very weird change if it's not a screw-up. Seems like it just encourages you to fall back even more...because if you stay in combat, now you not only can't shoot, you also have to let your opponent fight first.
So once again the question circles back to "how the heck does falling back work in 9th?"
The way the blightspawn is worded seems entirely intentional. It's what makes Revolting Stench work.
I think its a very interesting change. It allows the oppoent player a chance to shake themselves out of combat, which will be especially interesting if falling back changes (god I hope those speculations come true). More of a chance to fight free. But you're right... this really only works IF they make changes to falling back, otherwise the obvious choice is to retreat from an ongoing combat on your turn.
But if you're an assault army, look at it this way: You basically get two first picks in a row. First, on the turn you charge, and then first on the enemy turn when you're stuck in. How is that a bad thing?
McGibs wrote: You guys need to read better for those nuggets. GW just snnnnneaking in those little rules hints into the faction focuses like candy.
"Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them. "
Player who's turn it ISN'T gets to fight first (non charges). That's a small, but pretty impactful change.
Yep, it means my big hormagaunt units can now charge into combat...probably get stuck there, then in my opponents turn get shot by pistols and punched in the face before they can do anything.
OK, so that was sarcasm sorry, I'm actually not too bothered about this as everything I've seen so far seems to suggest that the plan for melee armies will be to advance turn one, then charge as many enemy units as you've got charging ones (the change to multicharge pretty much means unit on unit fights) in an attempt to give your opponent as many problems to worry about as possible (seeing as fallback is now a stratagem and outside of T'au I can't think of too many units i would imagine getting extra overwatch rules) and try to force a mistake.
I quite like this as its a very Tyranid approach to warfare, however I can see more elite melee armies (Blood Angels?) really having to think a bit more about who they engage.
Despite all the doomsaying going on around here I will personally still be using multiple big units of gaunts because it looks cool.
Edit Please ignore a lot of this as it seems i completely forgot that the following turn will be my opponents and therefore I will be picking non charging units first..so actually its an improvement Yay.
Uh... I dont think you read it right.
On your opponents turn, YOU get to fight first. Your gaunts get shot by pistols, and then mulch whatever shot them.
McGibs wrote: The way the blightspawn is worded seems entirely intentional. It's what makes Revolting Stench work.
I think its a very interesting change. It allows the oppoent player a chance to shake themselves out of combat, which will be especially interesting if falling back changes (god I hope those speculations come true). More of a chance to fight free. But you're right... this really only works IF they make changes to falling back, otherwise the obvious choice is to retreat from an ongoing combat on your turn.
But if you're an assault army, look at it this way: You basically get two first picks in a row. First, on the turn you charge, and then first on the enemy turn when you're stuck in. How is that a bad thing?
Only if you already have that ability as your army wide rule like Emperor's Children and all Slaanesh Daemons.
McGibs wrote: Uh... I dont think you read it right.
On your opponents turn, YOU get to fight first. Your gaunts get shot by pistols, and then mulch whatever shot them.
OK, so that was sarcasm sorry, I'm actually not too bothered about this as everything I've seen so far seems to suggest that the plan for melee armies will be to advance turn one, then charge as many enemy units as you've got charging ones (the change to multicharge pretty much means unit on unit fights) in an attempt to give your opponent as many problems to worry about as possible (seeing as fallback is now a stratagem and outside of T'au I can't think of too many units i would imagine getting extra overwatch rules) and try to force a mistake.
Wait did I miss something, has fallback been confirmed to be a strategem? Or did you mean overwatch?
Actually, I'm interested in seeing if weapons with a minimum range such as the plage thing in the article will be able to fire OUT of combat instead of atengaged models. I mean, if you cant physically lower the barrel enough what do you do?
Being a blast weapon, it cant shoot into its own combat anyway, but I don't see why it cant declare a target outside of combat as long as it's outside it's minimum range and it clears everything else within 1" with its other weapons first. The new "Big Guns Never Tire" rule that lets vehicles shoot in combat is pretty much build with this in mind.
OK, so that was sarcasm sorry, I'm actually not too bothered about this as everything I've seen so far seems to suggest that the plan for melee armies will be to advance turn one, then charge as many enemy units as you've got charging ones (the change to multicharge pretty much means unit on unit fights) in an attempt to give your opponent as many problems to worry about as possible (seeing as fallback is now a stratagem and outside of T'au I can't think of too many units i would imagine getting extra overwatch rules) and try to force a mistake.
Wait did I miss something, has fallback been confirmed to be a strategem? Or did you mean overwatch?
Oh dear lord, I am really not with it today. Yeah I meant overwatch, so more of my models should actually make it into combat to then be in the position next turn. Perhaps I should just go to bed for the rest of the day :(.
McGibs wrote: Being a blast weapon, it cant shoot into its own combat anyway, but I don't see why it cant declare a target outside of combat as long as it's outside it's minimum range and it clears everything else within 1" with its other weapons first. The new "Big Guns Never Tire" rule that lets vehicles shoot in combat is pretty much build with this in mind.
Unless that hull Heavy Bolter kills everyone nearby, though, it’s hard to load and fire artillery with Orks all over your Basilisk. So it seems unlikely they’d get to fire the main gun. Seems vaguely realistic, not a problem.
I wonder if changing Fall Back to be used in the Combat phase instead would be interesting. But with some restrictions. I'm thinking "A unit may Fall Back in the Combat Phase instead of fighting, but can only do so when all the units that charged this unit this turn have fought."
That way it can still Fall Back, still can't shoot the following turn, and the charging units didn't get punched in the meantime.
Aaranis wrote: I wonder if changing Fall Back to be used in the Combat phase instead would be interesting. But with some restrictions. I'm thinking "A unit may Fall Back in the Combat Phase instead of fighting, but can only do so when all the units that charged this unit this turn have fought."
That way it can still Fall Back, still can't shoot the following turn, and the charging units didn't get punched in the meantime.
I almost think this might be what is happening, because the rule change makes some sense then: the opponent gets the first activation during your turn, so that you can't fall back before they get to strike again. And if you want to fall back, you end up taking two rounds of combat before you can do so.
It would also fit the bill for the "big change" that Reece was talking about not having been revealed yet.
yep, first thing I noticed was the change to combat sequence which is a big deal.
Also, the Silent Bodyguard rule....is that something that already existed for deathshroud terms, or is this how bodyguards will now work? For example, you have a dedicated bodyguard unit of 2 within 3" of character. Character can be targeted, but bodyguard take hits on a 2+. Best part, this is hits, not auto MW which I hated. So the bodyguard will make it's saves as normal.
The Sorcerer on the left can be shot. The Sorcerer on the right cannot be shot.
Who here can guess the reason why?
Solution: The Left is secretly this scenario
Spoiler:
Hahaha, this is a pretty good one. Not sure how often it'll come up in games but it is interesting to think about. Is there a way to word a rule concisely that achieves the same effect as what we have, but also accounts for this edge case? (While also preventing weird, new edge cases?)
Alpharius wrote: Do many people actually play using "Power Levels" (and is there really any way to know this for sure?) and will "Power Levels" be continuing into 40K 9th?
They’ve said they will and they’ll be getting updated, unlike in 8th.
Don’t start the PL pros and cons here though. Plenty of salty threads telling people how they’re allowed to have fun already...
That's how the DG bodyguard rule has always worked - it is different than the way most ones work in that it intercepts the hit rather than transferring the wound.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's how the DG bodyguard rule has always worked - it is different than the way most ones work in that it intercepts the hit rather than transferring the wound.
Well, let's hope that carries over to all bodyguard units now. So much better than current system.
The opposition player getting to go first after chargers seems like a subtle but potentially very powerful change.
I felt one of the negatives about assault was that you charged something vaguely threatening, rolled below average, and then got smashed twice in the face, probably losing the unit.
Admittedly, it will probably just make falling back even more attractive if they haven't changed anything with that.
Have to say I'm optimistic about the game - but my hype is starting to evaporate. I'm far too impatient on this "lets drip feed you one rule change a day" approach.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Not only that, but now my Crawlers can fire their nasty plagueburst mortars (which are now Blast weapons too) on the move without suffering a hit penalty!
Who'da thunk it that a mortar would end up being a blast weapon in the new edition. What a revelation.
The absolutely weird thing is they apparently do need a playtester to tell us that, because they're copy/pasting the 8th edition weapon profile which doesn't include blast.
I mean, they could show us updated profiles that are actually from 9th, but apparently... no. They're just not going to do that.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Not only that, but now my Crawlers can fire their nasty plagueburst mortars (which are now Blast weapons too) on the move without suffering a hit penalty!
Who'da thunk it that a mortar would end up being a blast weapon in the new edition. What a revelation.
The absolutely weird thing is they apparently do need a playtester to tell us that, because they're copy/pasting the 8th edition weapon profile which doesn't include blast.
I mean, they could show us updated profiles that are actually from 9th, but apparently... no. They're just not going to do that.
They probably didn't update the stat blocks but instead just have an appendix labeled "blast weapons" that lists them alphabetically, groupes by faction.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Not only that, but now my Crawlers can fire their nasty plagueburst mortars (which are now Blast weapons too) on the move without suffering a hit penalty!
Who'da thunk it that a mortar would end up being a blast weapon in the new edition. What a revelation.
The absolutely weird thing is they apparently do need a playtester to tell us that, because they're copy/pasting the 8th edition weapon profile which doesn't include blast.
I mean, they could show us updated profiles that are actually from 9th, but apparently... no. They're just not going to do that.
They probably didn't update the stat blocks but instead just have an appendix labeled "blast weapons" that lists them alphabetically, groupes by faction.
Eh. They might do that.
I'm expecting a FAQ document (actually a slew of FAQs, one for each faction) with full profiles for any weapons that changed, though. Less chance of confusion, and to catch any other adjustments that need to be made to weapons at the same time. There are several where I'd change wording and/or dice. For example, the old demolisher cannon verbiage (5+ models, change to heavy d6) is still lurking in a few places and is completely unnecessary now.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Not only that, but now my Crawlers can fire their nasty plagueburst mortars (which are now Blast weapons too) on the move without suffering a hit penalty!
Who'da thunk it that a mortar would end up being a blast weapon in the new edition. What a revelation.
The absolutely weird thing is they apparently do need a playtester to tell us that, because they're copy/pasting the 8th edition weapon profile which doesn't include blast.
I mean, they could show us updated profiles that are actually from 9th, but apparently... no. They're just not going to do that.
They probably didn't update the stat blocks but instead just have an appendix labeled "blast weapons" that lists them alphabetically, groupes by faction.
So there won't be updated rules with the App for the old books I guess but just the old rules with the remark "please use the Appendix in the printed books"
ClockworkZion wrote: They said blast weapons will be defined on the appendix of the core rule book, and gave us no idication of day one errata dor those weapons as well.
Where'd they say they were taking the lazy and half-effort way?
And why did you suddenly change from 'probably' to 'they said?'
yukishiro1 wrote: That's how the DG bodyguard rule has always worked - it is different than the way most ones work in that it intercepts the hit rather than transferring the wound.
Well, let's hope that carries over to all bodyguard units now. So much better than current system.
Agreed. I think this version of the bodyguard rule makes a lot more sense than all the other variants. It also would make it easier if all bodyguard abilities worked in a similar manner to each other.
ClockworkZion wrote: They said blast weapons will be defined on the appendix of the core rule book, and gave us no idication of day one errata dor those weapons as well.
Where'd they say they were taking the lazy and half-effort way?
And why did you suddenly change from 'probably' to 'they said?'
Probably refered to exactly how they'll executed, they said has to do with the general statement they made back when they told us blasts where a thing when everything was announced.
ClockworkZion wrote: They said blast weapons will be defined on the appendix of the core rule book, and gave us no idication of day one errata dor those weapons as well.
Where'd they say they were taking the lazy and half-effort way?
And why did you suddenly change from 'probably' to 'they said?'
It was mentioned by Stu Black in one of the Warhammer Dailies. There's an appendix in the core rulebook which lists every blast weapon at launch, and when codices are redone they'll receive the proper keywording.
ClockworkZion wrote: They said blast weapons will be defined on the appendix of the core rule book, and gave us no idication of day one errata dor those weapons as well.
Where'd they say they were taking the lazy and half-effort way?
And why did you suddenly change from 'probably' to 'they said?'
They said it in the streams and I think also in one of the articles, Blast rules will be given by an Appendix in the Core Rule book which will list the weapon and their rules
something we had before, just that player usually ignore it and say that only Codex Errata counts and changes in the Appendix are just mistakes anyway
yukishiro1 wrote: That's how the DG bodyguard rule has always worked - it is different than the way most ones work in that it intercepts the hit rather than transferring the wound.
Well, let's hope that carries over to all bodyguard units now. So much better than current system.
Agreed. I think this version of the bodyguard rule makes a lot more sense than all the other variants. It also would make it easier if all bodyguard abilities worked in a similar manner to each other.
I could see others, namely Calgar's guard, act as if are units of 3+ for LoS purposes.
ClockworkZion wrote: They said blast weapons will be defined on the appendix of the core rule book, and gave us no idication of day one errata dor those weapons as well.
Where'd they say they were taking the lazy and half-effort way?
And why did you suddenly change from 'probably' to 'they said?'
They said it in the streams and I think also in one of the articles, Blast rules will be given by an Appendix in the Core Rule book which will list the weapon and their rules
something we had before, just that player usually ignore it and say that only Codex Errata counts and changes in the Appendix are just mistakes anyway
All 174 Blast weapons and Relics listed in the back of the new Warhammer 40,000 Core Book gain this ability. Here’s a selection of five of them, and why we’re happy to see them included:
– Barbed Strangler (the Tyranids get to shoot up enemy hordes too!)
– Deathstrike missile (yes, your favourite ICBM is getting EVEN DEADLIER)
– D-cannon (yay – more warp displacement for everyone!)
– Squig launcha (nomnomnom)
– Phlegm bombardment (now extra icky)
Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them
Chargers still fight first, but now once those are all done with the charger, the other player starts the pattern?
yukishiro1 wrote: That's how the DG bodyguard rule has always worked - it is different than the way most ones work in that it intercepts the hit rather than transferring the wound.
Well, let's hope that carries over to all bodyguard units now. So much better than current system.
Agreed. I think this version of the bodyguard rule makes a lot more sense than all the other variants. It also would make it easier if all bodyguard abilities worked in a similar manner to each other.
I could see others, namely Calgar's guard, act as if are units of 3+ for LoS purposes.
It wouldn't matter if they counted as 3+ models (my earlier suggestion in this thread), if the hits on a character can be allocated to a bodyguard unit within 3" on a 2+. I wasn't aware of this rule for Deathguard, but hope it becomes universal as the current variations of MW transference are a PITA. It's simple and effective. Just give all appropriate units the "bodyguard" keyword, and put the rule in the book.
diepotato47 wrote: We may actually get the rules a bit earlier than the release, iirc the app goes live on the day preorders open, and the app may be fully equip with rules and new power levels.
Honestly I'm hoping we see the full free rules go live on WHC as well when the pre-order pops up.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
diepotato47 wrote: We may actually get the rules a bit earlier than the release, iirc the app goes live on the day preorders open, and the app may be fully equip with rules and new power levels.
Honestly I'm hoping we see the full free rules go live on WHC as well when the pre-order pops up.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
I always hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
GW wrote:As well as championing the use of ‘pure’ Death Guard armies, uncorrupted by the ‘clean taint’ of allies...
Fun fact: The Death Guard can take units from their own Codex and still lose their army abilities. So much for "pure" without any allies. Moving on...
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:My favorite change of the new edition is how many more Command points the servants of the Plague God have at their disposal.
You mean to say that the general new rules for CP apply to Deathguard? Un-fething-believable! Not a strong start kids...
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:With the new edition’s matched play missions, it’s more important than ever to keep sight of your objectives.
Hang on... what did GW say about this guy?
"...Sam is a well established tournament organiser and a regular on the top tables and podiums of events across the USA. "
And he was losing sight of his objectives in 8th?
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:My Daemon Engines, Terminators and Characters will confidently hold the center of the battlefield while I grind down the enemy in a battle of attrition, leaving my Poxwalkers and Plague Marines free to take advantage of the terrain to advance and claim objectives.
That literally has nothing to do with 9th. That's just your overall strategy for playing your army.
GW wrote:Sam’s not done yet...
Did... did he start? 'Cause he wasn't really told us anything yet.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Under the new rules, my Plagueburst Crawlers are just as deadly with their plaguespitters even while locked in combat.
You mean to say that the general new rules for Vehicles also apply to Deathguard vehicles? Un-fething-believable!
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Not only that, but now my Crawlers can fire their nasty plagueburst mortars (which are now Blast weapons too) on the move without suffering a hit penalty!
Who'da thunk it that a mortar would end up being a blast weapon in the new edition. What a revelation.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them.
But that's a rule they already have. What relevance is this to 9th?
These previews are just so bad. And this one stinks.
Geddit? Stinks? Because it's about Nurg... never mind...
You seem to forget that the Faction Focus articles are aimed at specific players of specific armies that have not seen the rules previews or don't have the understanding of them like some long term players do. I'll give you that the vast majority of posters on dakka have dissected and analayzed the new rules but not everyone who plays 40k has been following the WHC site lately.
It seems awfully condescending to make statements such as you have been making. Some fairly new people to 40k might appreciate the articles.
The Sorcerer on the left can be shot. The Sorcerer on the right cannot be shot.
Who here can guess the reason why?
Solution: The Left is secretly this scenario
Spoiler:
Hahaha, this is a pretty good one. Not sure how often it'll come up in games but it is interesting to think about. Is there a way to word a rule concisely that achieves the same effect as what we have, but also accounts for this edge case? (While also preventing weird, new edge cases?)
I am sure it will be frustrating for all three of the people this actually happens to every year.
Wakshaani wrote: Lordy, but that bodyguard rule should be how it works for *all* bodyguards in all codexes, bar none.
Heck, if you did that, and got rid of the 5+ feel no pain, Tau drones would be acceptable again.
Seriously, that core mechanic is perfect.
Seriously people need to get past their hatred for drones, they arn't bodyguards they are a flyijg stormshield. Also without them half the tau codex would need to be 1/3rd cheape6than it already is to viable and you know people would complain twice as hard if Tau list with 1/3 rd more firepower went first.
Death Guard bodyguards work the you body guard gets a MW per wound works if your charictor is tougher/better save.
Not to mention who ouside of the rediculous nlos marine's is sniping your charictors?
GW wrote:As well as championing the use of ‘pure’ Death Guard armies, uncorrupted by the ‘clean taint’ of allies...
Fun fact: The Death Guard can take units from their own Codex and still lose their army abilities. So much for "pure" without any allies. Moving on...
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:My favorite change of the new edition is how many more Command points the servants of the Plague God have at their disposal.
You mean to say that the general new rules for CP apply to Deathguard? Un-fething-believable! Not a strong start kids...
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:With the new edition’s matched play missions, it’s more important than ever to keep sight of your objectives.
Hang on... what did GW say about this guy?
"...Sam is a well established tournament organiser and a regular on the top tables and podiums of events across the USA. "
And he was losing sight of his objectives in 8th?
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:My Daemon Engines, Terminators and Characters will confidently hold the center of the battlefield while I grind down the enemy in a battle of attrition, leaving my Poxwalkers and Plague Marines free to take advantage of the terrain to advance and claim objectives.
That literally has nothing to do with 9th. That's just your overall strategy for playing your army.
GW wrote:Sam’s not done yet...
Did... did he start? 'Cause he wasn't really told us anything yet.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Under the new rules, my Plagueburst Crawlers are just as deadly with their plaguespitters even while locked in combat.
You mean to say that the general new rules for Vehicles also apply to Deathguard vehicles? Un-fething-believable!
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Not only that, but now my Crawlers can fire their nasty plagueburst mortars (which are now Blast weapons too) on the move without suffering a hit penalty!
Who'da thunk it that a mortar would end up being a blast weapon in the new edition. What a revelation.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them.
But that's a rule they already have. What relevance is this to 9th?
These previews are just so bad. And this one stinks.
Geddit? Stinks? Because it's about Nurg... never mind...
You seem to forget that the Faction Focus articles are aimed at specific players of specific armies that have not seen the rules previews or don't have the understanding of them like some long term players do. I'll give you that the vast majority of posters on dakka have dissected and analayzed the new rules but not everyone who plays 40k has been following the WHC site lately.
It seems awfully condescending to make statements such as you have been making. Some fairly new people to 40k might appreciate the articles.
I know there's a fair amount of hyperbole in these posts from H.B.M.C but I do think they're doing a bit of a disservice to the articles. Firstly, as you say, they're not really aimed at the forum-goers here, but at less experienced or very new gamers. Secondly, while they may be mentioning general gameplay rules that affect everyone those rules don't affect every army equally and some will get more use out of them than others. IG, for example, will get more out of the new vehicle rules than Eldar.
Slipspace wrote:
I know there's a fair amount of hyperbole in these posts from H.B.M.C but I do think they're doing a bit of a disservice to the articles. Firstly, as you say, they're not really aimed at the forum-goers here, but at less experienced or very new gamers. Secondly, while they may be mentioning general gameplay rules that affect everyone those rules don't affect every army equally and some will get more use out of them than others. IG, for example, will get more out of the new vehicle rules than Eldar.
The articles are for whoever reads them. Mostly, because they're on the GW sites, they're for people who are already familiar with GW games- that's just how it works, new people don't go looking for summaries of edition changes- it doesn't matter to them, and new players also don't get much of anything out of a shallow dive into a few past edition soundbytes.. Even if they are somehow intended for 'new gamers,' they're still repeating the same information over and over again. 'New' doesn't mean 'idiot'
Second, no. Mechdar gets a lot of use out of vehicle rules, aircraft rules, etc. Foot eldar care just as much about cover, terrain and combat and definitely overwatch. Different army builds within the same army are going to care about different parts of the rules changes, offensively and defensively (a guard parking lot doesn't care much about overwatch changes offensively, but does defensively, while an aspect army cares a lot about not being shot to pieces.
However, to me, the key difference is how there are actually two "different" sets of rules for MTG. There are the "plain language" rules that almost everyone learns/is taught from, and then there are the Comprehensive (formal) rules. Most players never even look at the Comprehensive Rules, but they exist as an arbiter, not as casual reading.
The rules for Magic weren't always that way. They evolved that way over time because the people who were involved in judging games were Computer Scientists by trade.
It's also worth noting that each edition of Magic also had rules changes that fundamentally changed the game and made some cards unplayable or work very differently. Damage on the stack is something that comes to mind.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them.
But that's a rule they already have. What relevance is this to 9th?
Actually, this works different in 8th. Right now the blightspawn takes away fight first just to have the enemy fight before your blightlords anyways because the player whose turn it is gets to pick his fights first.
These previews are just so bad. And this one stinks.
Geddit? Stinks? Because it's about Nurg... never mind...
Agree, and the info gets less with each preview. If the trend continues, they will probably be previewing 7th edition rules by the middle of next week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: yep, first thing I noticed was the change to combat sequence which is a big deal.
Also, the Silent Bodyguard rule....is that something that already existed for deathshroud terms, or is this how bodyguards will now work? For example, you have a dedicated bodyguard unit of 2 within 3" of character. Character can be targeted, but bodyguard take hits on a 2+. Best part, this is hits, not auto MW which I hated. So the bodyguard will make it's saves as normal.
That's how deathshroud have always worked. According to fluff, they are Mortarion's elite bodyguards that can move unearthly fast to block shots from hitting their primarch.
Wakshaani wrote: Lordy, but that bodyguard rule should be how it works for *all* bodyguards in all codexes, bar none.
Heck, if you did that, and got rid of the 5+ feel no pain, Tau drones would be acceptable again.
Seriously, that core mechanic is perfect.
Seriously people need to get past their hatred for drones, they arn't bodyguards they are a flyijg stormshield. Also without them half the tau codex would need to be 1/3rd cheape6than it already is to viable and you know people would complain twice as hard if Tau list with 1/3 rd more firepower went first.
Death Guard bodyguards work the you body guard gets a MW per wound works if your charictor is tougher/better save.
Not to mention who ouside of the rediculous nlos marine's is sniping your charictors?
I don't hate on drones.
I just want this same rule in place for *all* bodyguards, including drones.
It's simple, it's easy, it's perfect. Command squads, Hive Guard, whatever... this is the rule they should have.
All Bodyguards should transfer HITS on a 2+. Those hits then wound/save as normal against the bodyguard unit. This is how it should work for ALL bodyguard units, drones included. It makes no sense that I can fire a Reaver Volcano Cannon into a KX139 Ta’unar Supremacy Armour, something that can theoretically do Six TWENTY FOUR damage wounds, only for a single Shield Drone to go "lolnope" and convert 144 Damage into 6 potentially ignored mortal wounds.
(Or for a codex example, the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon can theoretically have Nine TWELVE (total of 108 Damage, spoopy) damage wounds all tanked by a single shield drone too.)
I find it funny that everyone is getting so worked up about a Tau Drone turning a Wound with X theoretical damage into a Single Mortal Wound, that it can FNP on a 5+, when instead changing the rule to a Hit on the drone means it gets to use it's 4+ Invulnerable Save against any successful wounds on it. That would make the Drone even more effective at avoiding damage.
Well even the basic to-wound sequence doesn't make sense. Why is the armour save the last line of defense? You should hit, then go through the armour/force field, then if yes see if you manage to wound.
So I'm fine with my Tyrant Guards, as poor as they are, being able to intercept the hit after the Tyrant get to use it's T7 and 4++
alextroy wrote: I find it funny that everyone is getting so worked up about a Tau Drone turning a Wound with X theoretical damage into a Single Mortal Wound, that it can FNP on a 5+, when instead changing the rule to a Hit on the drone means it gets to use it's 4+ Invulnerable Save against any successful wounds on it. That would make the Drone even more effective at avoiding damage.
How is avoiding damage on a 4+ more effective, compared to avoiding damage on a 2+ ??
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skywave wrote: Well even the basic to-wound sequence doesn't make sense. Why is the armour save the last line of defense? You should hit, then go through the armour/force field, then if yes see if you manage to wound.
So I'm fine with my Tyrant Guards, as poor as they are, being able to intercept the hit after the Tyrant get to use it's T7 and 4++
Even this doesnt make sense. There shouldnt be any armor saves against certain weapons. When you get hit by a dark eldar poison weapon, and it wounds, how is any armor going to save you ?
alextroy wrote: I find it funny that everyone is getting so worked up about a Tau Drone turning a Wound with X theoretical damage into a Single Mortal Wound, that it can FNP on a 5+, when instead changing the rule to a Hit on the drone means it gets to use it's 4+ Invulnerable Save against any successful wounds on it. That would make the Drone even more effective at avoiding damage.
Drones are easier to wound, and 4+ into multiple 5+ is easier to fail than a single 5+
alextroy wrote: I find it funny that everyone is getting so worked up about a Tau Drone turning a Wound with X theoretical damage into a Single Mortal Wound, that it can FNP on a 5+, when instead changing the rule to a Hit on the drone means it gets to use it's 4+ Invulnerable Save against any successful wounds on it. That would make the Drone even more effective at avoiding damage.
I think the issue is the number of them and the fact that they act like a separate unit from what they're protecting rather than a part of the same unit like past editions is where a lot of the issue is since a single Shield Drone unit can protect multiple units at the same time and the large number means a lot of what becomes chip damage to get through to be effective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thinking of saves, I feel like Daemons need something versus shooting. In the lore shooting them has never been as effective as hitting them with a melee weapon due to the emotional energy a melee strike has meaning that shooting should get some kind of change to be less good against Daemons. Not a complete nerf mind you, but something should give there, even if it's a "+1 to your invul versus shooting".
alextroy wrote: I find it funny that everyone is getting so worked up about a Tau Drone turning a Wound with X theoretical damage into a Single Mortal Wound, that it can FNP on a 5+, when instead changing the rule to a Hit on the drone means it gets to use it's 4+ Invulnerable Save against any successful wounds on it. That would make the Drone even more effective at avoiding damage.
Actually no, it should mean more dead drones. As the passing off is happening earlier in the sequence you can wound more of them in one go and they will take the full damage from the weapon instead of having it converted to a single mortal wound.
What i want to know is are they going to follow tradition and make Sisters of Battle unplayable in the new edition and then wait a couple of decades to give them new rules
alextroy wrote: I find it funny that everyone is getting so worked up about a Tau Drone turning a Wound with X theoretical damage into a Single Mortal Wound, that it can FNP on a 5+, when instead changing the rule to a Hit on the drone means it gets to use it's 4+ Invulnerable Save against any successful wounds on it. That would make the Drone even more effective at avoiding damage.
Actually no, it should mean more dead drones. As the passing off is happening earlier in the sequence you can wound more of them in one go and they will take the full damage from the weapon instead of having it converted to a single mortal wound.
What your realy asking for is for the buckets of dice and rerolls for days to screw Tau over just as hard as everyone else instead od how about we maybe just stop the idiocy of throw 100 dice with full reroll at everything and it dies regardless idiocy.
Also you ever see any other bodyguard units in the entire game? No you don't, outside of deathguard
Nerf drones and you won't see them either you just see Tau armies with 1/3 more models as that's how much cheaper they would have to get to stand still in terms of balance.
Just wondering when retailers will get the first inclination of the release dates? I've had emails already asking to register interest, wondered if it was foretelling preorder announcements today maybe?
Dudeface wrote: Just wondering when retailers will get the first inclination of the release dates? I've had emails already asking to register interest, wondered if it was foretelling preorder announcements today maybe?
I expect round 2 of Lumineth, but hope for Pariah releases.
Dudeface wrote: Just wondering when retailers will get the first inclination of the release dates? I've had emails already asking to register interest, wondered if it was foretelling preorder announcements today maybe?
I expect round 2 of Lumineth, but hope for Pariah releases.
They said in the lumineth box article that 'round 2' would be 'later in the year.' So that's off the table.
It could be pariah or giants or necromunda ogryn or underworlds, warcry or...? And some of the 'ors' could be and/or.
Dudeface wrote: Just wondering when retailers will get the first inclination of the release dates? I've had emails already asking to register interest, wondered if it was foretelling preorder announcements today maybe?
Dudeface wrote: Just wondering when retailers will get the first inclination of the release dates? I've had emails already asking to register interest, wondered if it was foretelling preorder announcements today maybe?
When GW opens preorders is most likely.
Well bearing in mind they announce them the week before they open them that seems unlikely, even if they only found out the week they're announced, they'll be able to order from that day for stock purposes landing a price at least
Dudeface wrote: Just wondering when retailers will get the first inclination of the release dates? I've had emails already asking to register interest, wondered if it was foretelling preorder announcements today maybe?
When GW opens preorders is most likely.
Well bearing in mind they announce them the week before they open them that seems unlikely, even if they only found out the week they're announced, they'll be able to order from that day for stock purposes landing a price at least
Also you ever see any other bodyguard units in the entire game? No you don't, outside of deathguard
Well, we haven 't seen this kind of character targeting rule before, so yes, I may think about a bodyguard or 2 in the future.
And Tau need to play differently, it's so one dimensional that I really hope they have thrown a bone to the Tau players to use more of their toys. You should have dedicated protector drones than act as bodyguards, not all drones should be able to do this. 2+ allocate to drone, 4+ invuln, Done.
And a final yes, 100+ dice plus full rerolls needs to go away. The best thing they could do is force reroll auras to help ONE unit only, not all units within x"
Pariah still has to drop yet, and a big release Is usually two weeks of preorders, and GW said you com order in July so I'm guessing we will get preorders up last Saturday in July.
I've seen some places doing register interest but it seems pointless when no one has numbers or price ? Seems more like an attempt to get some cash in based on a vague notion of a release - one wants £50 deposit per box.....
TwilightSparkles wrote: Pariah still has to drop yet, and a big release Is usually two weeks of preorders, and GW said you com order in July so I'm guessing we will get preorders up last Saturday in July.
I've seen some places doing register interest but it seems pointless when no one has numbers or price ? Seems more like an attempt to get some cash in based on a vague notion of a release - one wants £50 deposit per box.....
Of what we know is left to releasr there is maybe 3 weeks worth at best?
Pariah, 2nd half of the elves, gargants and a smattering of specialist minis.
Engine War Preorder - May 30, should have been April
War of the Spider Preorder - June 13, should have been May
Pariah Preorder - June 27?, should have been June
Warhammer 40k New Edition Preorder - July 11?
Warhammer 40k Release (2-week preorder) - July 25?
Could be reading tea leaves. Time will tell. What else is on the deck for GW releases to take up the rest of the weekend releases? Underworlds, Warcry, and Sons of Behemat are all one weekend releases.
ClockworkZion wrote: Lumineth just got their round 1, so just Gargants and Pariah left, which could still mean 40k coming out in early July.
Why woulf Gargants need to be before 9th edition?
Even if so they could do them preorder 25th released 1st and still have 9th go preorder the 11th and on sale 25th as roumered.
I haven't the energy to gak all over this one, but it does have one bit that's actually new:
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:However, the Adeptus Mechanicus has the tools at its disposal to overcome this – Vehicles firing on enemies within engagement range and a new Core Stratagem to allow a trapped unit to break free. There are also some previously less-seen units like Kataphron Breachers and Fulgurite Electro-Priests waiting to make a comeback and defend your lines.
This is like being told the middle part of a story. What are the Fall Back rules GW???
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I have to assume it is. Because otherwise, why spend 2CP and risk auto destruction?
Logic dictates that the existence of this stratagem means that Fall Back isn't just "waltz out of combat for no cost", because why would one pay points to inflict casualties on themselves when they don't need to.
From what I can see this leaves only two possible explanations:
1. Fall Back as we know it is gone, and it is no longer something you can just do for free without there being an associated cost. 2. GW really have written a 2CP strat for the times when you get tri-pointed. This means that tri-pointing is no longer an tactic borne of an unintended consequence of a rules quirk, but rather something GW expects everyone to do.
ClockworkZion wrote: Lumineth just got their round 1, so just Gargants and Pariah left, which could still mean 40k coming out in early July.
Why woulf Gargants need to be before 9th edition?
Even if so they could do them preorder 25th released 1st and still have 9th go preorder the 11th and on sale 25th as roumered.
Nothing says Pariah has to come before 9th either. Point was more that those were the last two large releases and assuming GW does both of them then we're likely only 3 weeks out from getting 9th.
If Desperate Breakout is how one can trigger Fall Back without faction specific bonuses, ala Overwatch, this could be very, very good.
I have to assume it is. Because otherwise, why spend 2CP and risk auto destruction?
This is to escape from a tri-point situation, so the alternative is not fall back at all, hence the danger risk
I disagree, as the wording allows it to be used provided an enemy unit is in Engagement Range, rather than requiring multiple?
Goes back to my assumption of why? If Fall Back remains, why this strat to spend 2CP to make a Fall Back deadlier?
In theory it could be when you’re just totally surrounded and unable to move at all. So even just one big unit is capable of doing that and trapping your unit in place.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I have to assume it is. Because otherwise, why spend 2CP and risk auto destruction?
Logic dictates that the existence of this stratagem means that Fall Back isn't just "waltz out of combat for no cost", because why would one pay points to inflict casualties on themselves when they don't need to.
From what I can see this leaves only two possible explanations:
1. Fall Back as we know it is gone, and it is no longer something you can just do for free without there being an associated cost.
2. GW really have written a 2CP strat for the times when you get tri-pointed. This means that tri-pointing is no longer an tactic borne of an unintended consequence of a rules quirk, but rather something GW expects everyone to do.
Pretty much this. Though I still don’t understand tripoointing, and never will! But my lack of comprehension don’t matter!
But tri-pointing exists because it's something people have to do because the Fall Back rules are so detrimental to assault units/armies.
So... actually... yeah. It makes sense that GW would write a CP to help you out of a situation that only comes about because they made Fall Back too powerful in the first place that people had to find a way to stop it rather than just fixing the core problem itself.
It sounds like specifically regarding a "trapped" unit (the answer to tri-pointing), perhaps fall back is still allowed as long as each model can move without moving through an enemy model. Which makes sense as it specifically forbids rules to allow firing after falling back which would be terrible for all units engaged in combat.. This strat seems like a desperate escape rather than a true fall back. (can't shoot, even if rule allows..ala Ultras)
edit: wow, I must be super slow at typing seeing all of the answers above mine, lol
Isn't the point of paying and potentially destroying part of your own unit, not so you get the unit out of combat for the units sake, but so you can shoot the unit that tried to tie your unit up... Indicating tri-pointing is still a thing, but you now have an option to nullify it.
Falling back normally might have a similar mechanic as this strat, where you roll a d6 for every model in the unit that attempts to fall back, and on the roll of a 1 a model in that unit dies.
This strat might just allow you to escape tri-pointing but all the other rules in the strat are the same as a fall back.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah last paragraph seems to indicate fall back stil exists. This is for 3 pointed trapped but with penalty
So, my imperial knight, who is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally, has the same chance of dying as a tri pointed T2 gretchin ?
tneva82 wrote: Yeah last paragraph seems to indicate fall back stil exists. This is for 3 pointed trapped but with penalty
So, my imperial knight, who is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally, has the same chance of dying as a tri pointed T2 gretchin ?
Yeah, just like he has the same chance of Cutting Someone Down as the S2 Gretchin.
It is frustrating they leaked this without leaking what is happening to falling back generally. It looks like this is just a 2CP "escape from a wrap" strat, which is actually a nerf to melee overall if falling back stays the same. But it's hard to believe even GW would be dumb enough to keep falling back the same and nerf melee AGAIN by letting you also get out of wraps, albeit at significant cost.
It also lets you suicide your unit that is engaged in combat for 2CP, which also seems like a very strange design decision - see the wording about any model that finishes its move inside engagement range being destroyed, meaning you have the option to hit the strat then not actually fall back and just pull the unit, so even move-blocking the fall back will not prevent them from pulling their unit then blasting you off the table.
This just feeds into the basic problems with falling back - people don't do it to the save the unit, just to allow the rest of their army to shoot what was fighting the unit. This just makes it worse because it allows you to always be able to shoot the unit, for 2CP.
Unless, of course, they wrap two different units.
So from what we can tell, wrapping just got even more important, not less important.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah last paragraph seems to indicate fall back stil exists. This is for 3 pointed trapped but with penalty
So, my imperial knight, who is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally, has the same chance of dying as a tri pointed T2 gretchin ?
Or you could use your datasheet's rule that allows you to fall back...but too hard concept?
Until gw says otherwise no reason to think others have changed. This and previous knight rule can work just fine together. Nothing in either prevents other to exists.
Hell even knight could technically find use for this if 3 pointed by non infantry/swarm. But if 3 pointed by infantry then unless gw changes it you use rules in your datasheet. That stratagem doesn't override.
If Desperate Breakout is how one can trigger Fall Back without faction specific bonuses, ala Overwatch, this could be very, very good.
I have to assume it is. Because otherwise, why spend 2CP and risk auto destruction?
This is to escape from a tri-point situation, so the alternative is not fall back at all, hence the danger risk
I disagree, as the wording allows it to be used provided an enemy unit is in Engagement Range, rather than requiring multiple?
Goes back to my assumption of why? If Fall Back remains, why this strat to spend 2CP to make a Fall Back deadlier?
Why would being AN enemy unit vs multiple matter? Most Tripoints are 1 unit tripointing 1 unit for protection or 1 unit tripointing multiple bad in melee units.
yea this seems to me to completely be a reaction to wrap'n'trap situations and is ontop of normal fallback not in replacement of it.
WNT looks a bit gamey so i can see why GW want to provide a means out of it, to be honest though its a pretty clever thing to pull off and in my opinion quite tactical and not to mention the fact it can keep assault armies alive! this 2cp get out clause just feels meh... the istuations where it's key it's a no brainer 2cp to take that one marines ou of combat so ye army can gun down 20 orks
goes along with GW really not liking hordes or big units in this ed.
I did not like the way tri-pointing was used in the game...super gamey and not logical. Surrounding a unit that you didn't kill off in combat is totally fine though. You have to remember it's 2CP though, it ain't cheap. We won't have infinite CP to do all of these things we're seeing (especially since you probably want to use the ones from your book that you built your list around).
bullyboy wrote: I did not like the way tri-pointing was used in the game...super gamey and not logical. Surrounding a unit that you didn't kill off in combat is totally fine though. You have to remember it's 2CP though, it ain't cheap. We won't have infinite CP to do all of these things we're seeing (especially since you probably want to use the ones from your book that you built your list around).
I'd gladly pay 2 CPs to blast your unit off with my army and save 83% of my remaining unit.
The only reason I could accept this stratagem would be the complete removal of standard Fall Back (leaving this Stratagem as the only option)
tneva82 wrote: Yeah last paragraph seems to indicate fall back stil exists. This is for 3 pointed trapped but with penalty
So, my imperial knight, who is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally, has the same chance of dying as a tri pointed T2 gretchin ?
Or you could use your datasheet's rule that allows you to fall back...but too hard concept?
Read the rules before trying to lecture others Knights can only fall back over INFANTRY. They cant do it over NON INFANTRY. I said NON INFANTRY.
Galas wrote: Yeah. If your knights is surrounded by... bikers or... dreadnoughts or rhinos... then... bad luck?
well, your knight is probably going to obliterate what's in contact with it in the shooting phase (and probably can target other units with remainder of weapons). But, if you really must get away...it's a 1/36 chance of killing you (you're going to save a CP for reroll right).
There are a few gamey things so far with these strats though in regards to big powerful units. Cut Them Down making grots more scary to run away from than a Bloodthirster for example.
bullyboy wrote: I did not like the way tri-pointing was used in the game...super gamey and not logical. Surrounding a unit that you didn't kill off in combat is totally fine though. You have to remember it's 2CP though, it ain't cheap. We won't have infinite CP to do all of these things we're seeing (especially since you probably want to use the ones from your book that you built your list around).
I'd gladly pay 2 CPs to blast your unit off with my army and save 83% of my remaining unit.
The only reason I could accept this stratagem would be the complete removal of standard Fall Back (leaving this Stratagem as the only option)
Seems like melee units need to coordinate multiple assaults. Overwatch and this fall back strat can only be used by one unit....so the answer is to have multiple options. we still haven't seen how the game plays as a whole, that is something that needs to be seen.
bullyboy wrote: I did not like the way tri-pointing was used in the game...super gamey and not logical. Surrounding a unit that you didn't kill off in combat is totally fine though. You have to remember it's 2CP though, it ain't cheap. We won't have infinite CP to do all of these things we're seeing (especially since you probably want to use the ones from your book that you built your list around).
I'd gladly pay 2 CPs to blast your unit off with my army and save 83% of my remaining unit.
The only reason I could accept this stratagem would be the complete removal of standard Fall Back (leaving this Stratagem as the only option)
That would require rewriting of whole game unless you want to make shooty armies worst armies ever though. Assault at it's worst would be powerhouses in comparison
Wakshaani wrote: Hrm. Looking at it more and it notes "may ATTEMPT to Fall Back".
Which means there's a chance of it happening, a chance that it won't.
There's some kind of LD test involved here.
Hrm!
LD test to fall back would make sense, gotta do something to make it easy for space marines but hard for everyone else doncha know.
Necrons have even better leadership though.
A leadership test to fall back seems logical (and would make Night Lords the kings of trapping people in melee), but I almost expect GW to just have players dice off for it instead.
Never understood the Ld test for falling back in previous editions. If your unit is ill-disciplined and prone to panic in tense situations (Ld 3-5) it would run away as soon as they see they have no chance. Why couldn't they run away because of a failed Ld test ? They too dumb to know how to turn and run ?
I could see a Ld test to see how well the retreat is handled by the leader of the unit, using covering fire or something, that minimises the risk involved, but a Ld test to see if you're able to run away...
Wakshaani wrote: Hrm. Looking at it more and it notes "may ATTEMPT to Fall Back".
Which means there's a chance of it happening, a chance that it won't.
There's some kind of LD test involved here.
Hrm!
LD test to fall back would make sense, gotta do something to make it easy for space marines but hard for everyone else doncha know.
Necrons have even better leadership though.
A leadership test to fall back seems logical (and would make Night Lords the kings of trapping people in melee), but I almost expect GW to just have players dice off for it instead.
...or you’re just reading too much into the wording and the may attempt to refers to the fact a couple guys (heck, the entire unit) can die in the process (the dead models failed to fall back).
As a side note, I don’t understand why people are so concerned about the casualties. Most people I know would be happy to just remove the wrapped unit as casualties if it means they can shoot the assault unit now left vulnerable in the open.
Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."
That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.
A bit disappointed that tri-pointing is still a thing. I mean, I guess it's an interesting mechanic for competitive players (I guess?) but not so great for narrative play.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."
That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.
Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: A bit disappointed that tri-pointing is still a thing. I mean, I guess it's an interesting mechanic for competitive players (I guess?) but not so great for narrative play.
The Hive Mind just refuses to shoot into the swirling melee where Termagant Bob is fighting for his life. The guardsmen surrounding Termagant Bob can be heard yelling ’Don’t kill it! We’re safe here! Hey Hive Mind! We got a hostage! Take one more step and we kill Bob!!’
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."
That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.
Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.
But a multi-wrap is rarely done by multi-charging anyway. You generally want to do it by charging one target but committing your units to the target you didn't charge, so you can wrap without having to fight them.
If normal fall back still exists unmodified, GW is even more clueless than we generally think they are. The problem with 8th edition was not melee dominance, and yet every single change previewed so far is buffs for shooting units to make it even easier for them to blast melee units off the table.
Imagine if the rule for falling back was done in the morale phase, and you could only fall back if you failed the leadership test (meaning losing models).
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."
That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.
Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.
But a multi-wrap is rarely done by multi-charging anyway. You generally want to do it by charging one target but committing your units to the target you didn't charge, so you can wrap without having to fight them.
If normal fall back still exists unmodified, GW is even more clueless than we generally think they are. The problem with 8th edition was not melee dominance, and yet every single change previewed so far is buffs for shooting units to make it even easier for them to blast melee units off the table.
You’re not really wrong. Most playtesters that I know consider 9th to be a better game than 8th, but still very much a shooting game.
Overwatch is a strat now
Vehicles can shoot into combat
Multicharges got nerfed
You can't reliable tripoint anymore (remember? They wanted to get rid of a gamey mechanic)
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."
That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.
Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: A bit disappointed that tri-pointing is still a thing. I mean, I guess it's an interesting mechanic for competitive players (I guess?) but not so great for narrative play.
The Hive Mind just refuses to shoot into the swirling melee where Termagant Bob is fighting for his life. The guardsmen surrounding Termagant Bob can be heard yelling ’Don’t kill it! We’re safe here! Hey Hive Mind! We got a hostage! Take one more step and we kill Bob!!’
Yeah and you still have players who “don’t see what the problem is”. I play nids and I actually did have that situation, where I couldn’t kill bob the termagant because he was in synapse range, and my hive guard were being threatened by the unit tri pointing bob. Luckily I smited my way out of the situation but maaaan. Almost lost that tournament game because I could turn synapse off and let bob the last termagant die to morale due to losses in the fight phase. Totally stupid situation...
Can still tri-point, your opponent just has to pay 2CP to suicide the unit out of it, and can't do it if you wrapped multiple units. I.e. the "gamey" mechanic is very much still a huge part of the game, and you still want to do it every single time you can, to drain your opponent's CP if nothing more.
If they wanted to get rid of wrapping they went about it in exactly the wrong way.
It's been awhile, but IIRC older editions forced a unit that failed moral to fall back and if they couldn't due to being trapped, the unit was just outright destroyed. It was a very difficult scenario to set up, but it happened occasionally.
Anyway, this strat. specifically says it's to be used in the Movement Phase so I imagine Fall Back is largely the same as 8th edition.
Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.
yukishiro1 wrote: Can still tri-point, your opponent just has to pay 2CP to suicide the unit out of it, and can't do it if you wrapped multiple units. I.e. the "gamey" mechanic is very much still a huge part of the game, and you still want to do it every single time you can, to drain your opponent's CP if nothing more.
If they wanted to get rid of wrapping they went about it in exactly the wrong way.
Yes, if GW has left the fall back rules as they are in 8th, and if they were indeed aiming at getting rid of tripointing, then they really fetched it up big time... Also enough with the stratagems. Why does everything need to cost cp ? Some armies can’t spare any cp, when others really can.
Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.
But this doesn't get rid of tri-point at all, in fact it encourages you to do it every single time you can in order to drain your opponent's CP, and makes it even more important than it used to be to trap multiple units.
This is just going to make people to take even more care than they did before in setting up wraps.
oni wrote: It's been awhile, but IIRC older editions forced a unit that failed moral to fall back and if they couldn't due to being trapped, the unit was just outright destroyed. It was a very difficult scenario to set up, but it happened occasionally.
Anyway, this strat. specifically says it's to be used in the Movement Phase so I imagine Fall Back is largely the same as 8th edition.
Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.
You also had to fall back towards your table edge in a straight a line as possible, which made it a bit easier to fence people in, then you had sweeping advances to catch them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I have to assume it is. Because otherwise, why spend 2CP and risk auto destruction?
Logic dictates that the existence of this stratagem means that Fall Back isn't just "waltz out of combat for no cost", because why would one pay points to inflict casualties on themselves when they don't need to.
From what I can see this leaves only two possible explanations:
1. Fall Back as we know it is gone, and it is no longer something you can just do for free without there being an associated cost.
2. GW really have written a 2CP strat for the times when you get tri-pointed. This means that tri-pointing is no longer an tactic borne of an unintended consequence of a rules quirk, but rather something GW expects everyone to do.
From my reading of the strat, my understanding of GW's general rules for 8th and what we've seen for 9th, the existence of the "Cut Them Down" strat and its implications, and GW's typical desire to fix rules with more rules, I'm guessing #2 is most likely. I'm thinking they never really initially intended tripointing given that almost literally every other rules mechanic in the game goes out of its way to avoid such micromanaged model positioning, but once aware of it, decided they didn't want to mess with their original movement/fall back rules but instead would just accept it and add a new Stratagem as a solution for people to play with.
oni wrote: It's been awhile, but IIRC older editions forced a unit that failed moral to fall back and if they couldn't due to being trapped, the unit was just outright destroyed. It was a very difficult scenario to set up, but it happened occasionally.
Anyway, this strat. specifically says it's to be used in the Movement Phase so I imagine Fall Back is largely the same as 8th edition.
Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.
You also had to fall back towards your table edge in a straight a line as possible, which made it a bit easier to fence people in, then you had sweeping advances to catch them.
Crossfire rule as well.
If you were savvy enough to deep strike a unit in behind the enemy you charged, if they fell back then they were destroyed by the cross firing unit.
Loved that rule, difficult to set up, but it encouraged tactical and strategic play... Most people didn't bother due to the difficulty but you were in my awe if you managed to do it.
Wakshaani wrote: Hrm. Looking at it more and it notes "may ATTEMPT to Fall Back".
Which means there's a chance of it happening, a chance that it won't.
There's some kind of LD test involved here.
Hrm!
I'd expect move movement, like the old D6+ Initiative tests to get away.
Something like "Each side rolls a D6, with a +1 if their move is higher, +2 if it's double - if the side wanting to fall back gets highest it can otherwise it remains in combat."
Vaktathi wrote: decided they didn't want to mess with their original movement/fall back rules but instead would just accept it and add a new Stratagem as a solution for people to play with.
Which is the worst possible solution, the one thing NOBODY really wanted.
CA: 4. prepared positions (i.e. cover save for turn no.1)
New: 5. reserves 6. cut them down 7. overwatch 8. fall back through enemy units
Edit... I remembered the seventh one, reserves. That's all of them then. Edit 2... Prepared positions as an 8th. I thought GW said there would be 7 core strats in the new edition.
Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.
It isn't clear whether strategic reserves is a strat or just something you can do for free. From what they've said, there are substantial limitations on it that don't apply to DS/outflank/etc, so it might just be something you can do.
Prepared positions could also be going away, or becoming a base rule for the defender in all cases.
yukishiro1 wrote: Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.
This issue is most of the people who are anti fallback are arguing for a pendulum swing of rules changes that results in CC becoming an automatic I win button. Better terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.
No counter play no balance.
CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.
I think I recall Stu mentioning a reserves strat. on the Twitch stream. I believe the discussion was about putting units into reserve that do not otherwise have the ability to do so. I suppose it could be a core rule, but I would hope there is some price to do it.
I don't want to prejudice anyone before they check and maybe it's just a thing I've missed, so I'll be putting the weirdness in spoilers:
Spoiler:
Hey, did you look yet? Cool. Space Marines are not present in Armies of the Imperium. They have their own tag.
It wasn't like this a few days ago. I don't think it has a deeper meaning - the list was just too long. They have bundles with no discount to save a few clicks, so I guess they want to save the costumers some seconds of scrolling.
That or Guilliman seperates the Adeptus Astartes from the Imperium. Well...
yukishiro1 wrote: Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.
I wouldn’t really sign that this makes tri-pointing a bigger part. Before it was guaranteed against nearly any non-fly unit you charged or consolidated into, and in those cases it was the absolute best way to play. Now it’s not always guaranteed to work. Because it comes with some drawbacks (only one of your guys actually go within 1” and attack, so you do no damage) I’m not sure it would be ’always worth it’ like you said to do no damage at all just to drain 2 cp from your opponent.
Ice_can wrote: terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.
No counter play no balance.
CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.
The terrain is worse than ITC for melee, the competitive format everyone used, not better. In ITC ruins block even if you're in them, in 9th they only block LOS if you're behind them, which is a huge nerf to melee. The distance between armies is the same, it's the rest that got smaller, which actually generally favors shooting as it makes it even harder to outrange stuff.
The amount of units with T1 charge capability is a stupid left-over and side effect of how shooty 8th was. The only thing GW knew to do to make combat units viable was to make them so fast they can engage before they get shot. It's stupid and they should have removed most of these interactions from 9th rather than continuing to balance around them. "Charge something, then get wiped off the table on your next turn by the enemy's shooting" doesn't make for satisfying gameplay.
yukishiro1 wrote: Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.
This issue is most of the people who are anti fallback are arguing for a pendulum swing of rules changes that results in CC becoming an automatic I win button. Better terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.
No counter play no balance.
CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.
Distances are same. Table size(minimum) results in smaller depth. But with 30-40" t1 charges and/or starting 9" from enemy dz t1 charges were already dead easy.
What is tau to do if enemy army basically t1 assaults whole army and there's no fall back? Manipulating casualties so entire tau units don't die is dirt easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: I think I recall Stu mentioning a reserves strat. on the Twitch stream. I believe the discussion was about putting units into reserve that do not otherwise have the ability to do so. I suppose it could be a core rule, but I would hope there is some price to do it.
And thought they mentioned cp cost. This when they talked about cp change
yukishiro1 wrote: Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.
I wouldn’t really sign that this makes tri-pointing a bigger part. Before it was guaranteed against nearly any non-fly unit you charged or consolidated into, and in those cases it was the absolute best way to play. Now it’s not always guaranteed to work. Because it comes with some drawbacks (only one of your guys actually go within 1” and attack, so you do no damage) I’m not sure it would be ’always worth it’ like you said to do no damage at all just to drain 2 cp from your opponent.
I'm not talking about the "deliberately don't kill the enemy by fighting with only one model" kind of tri-point. I'm talking about the "fight with most of your models then tri-point if there's something left" kind. This just makes it even more necessary to be really careful with your movement to see if you can trap stuff, even if your overall objective is to kill most of the unit. It will result in even more tortured premeasuring and 5+ minute fiddling with your charging models to maximize your chances of being able to wrap something, or ideally two somethings.
Before wrap and trap was usually pretty quick and easy because you only needed to do it to one thing. Now people are going to be playing intricate geometry patterns every charge phase to see if they have some way to do an unbeatable wrap or, failing that, at least force the opponent to waste 2CP.
Ice_can wrote: terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.
No counter play no balance.
CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.
The terrain is worse than ITC for melee, the competitive format everyone used, not better. In ITC ruins block even if you're in them, in 9th they only block LOS if you're behind them, which is a huge nerf to melee. The distance between armies is the same, it's the rest that got smaller, which actually generally favors shooting as it makes it even harder to outrange stuff.
The amount of units with T1 charge capability is a stupid left-over and side effect of how shooty 8th was. The only thing GW knew to do to make combat units viable was to make them so fast they can engage before they get shot. It's stupid and they should have removed most of these interactions from 9th rather than continuing to balance around them. "Charge something, then get wiped off the table on your next turn by the enemy's shooting" doesn't make for satisfying gameplay.
Well if you think only america did competive tournaments...europe had plenty competive tournaments and itc was minority. And we had better balance.
Though terrain rule was here too. Indeed on 8th ed launch date onward
European tournaments had the same 1st floor of ruins blocks LOS rule, didn't they? I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest over America vs. Europe, just pointing out that the 9th edition ruins rule are a nerf to melee vis-a-vis the rules most people used in 8th, not a buff.
yukishiro1 wrote: Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.
Remember that it's not just GW. They were influenced by playtesters who, by all accounts, were largely tournament players who may or may not believe tri-pointing was a problem, or believed that it was such a rare problem that a 2CP strat would fix it.
I don't think this will replace fall back I just hope fall back itself has seen some changes to not be automatic and a no brainer so you can crater where the melee unit use to be.
After the melee sequencing change I had thought maybe fall back was something you could do on your turn instead of making your melee attacks.
yukishiro1 wrote: European tournaments had the same 1st floor of ruins blocks LOS rule, didn't they? I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest over America vs. Europe, just pointing out that the 9th edition ruins rule are a nerf to melee vis-a-vis the rules most people used in 8th, not a buff.
We did (first floor blocks los) the entire edition, but ETC and BTC and all preparatory events of course went even better than that, and all terrain was L and U shaped walls (ruins) with no holes or windows or doors whatsoever. Those same walls continue to block LOS completely in 9th, because you still can’t shoot something you don’t physically see at all.
Tripointing is one of those things that's well known among the competitive environment but is widely unknown and underused among the greater playerbase at large, and I think a lot of people aren't really going to understand the point of "Desperate Breakout" or see a whole lot of use for it in many environments.
I personally have no problem with wrapping, aside from the tedium of actually doing it. But their solution doesn't address the actual problem - it just makes the movement part even more tedious, then gives the other player an "out" for 2CP.
If there was a problem with wrapping it's that it slowed the game down too much with too much careful measuring. But this only makes that element even worse, since if you can tri-point two units, you defeat the counter-mechanism.
I don't think *anybody* thought the problem with tri-pointing was it wasn't technical enough.
At this point I feel like I am going to just start saying: "I am charging you with my 10-man combat unit, fighting with 6 of them, then wrapping you if you have anything left. We both know from looking I can do this, because I have the movement to wrap a survivor no matter how you pull casualties. Can we save 5-10 minutes of pointless measuring and counter-measuring and just play by intent and say that's what happened? Either you're going to fail morale, use the 2CP strat, or stay in combat, and either way isn't it easier just to save everyone's time and energy?"
Retaining the pointless tedium while providing an automatic out is the worst possible way to deal with wrapping.
People have been pointing out how this affects tripointing, but it's worth noting this also effects wrap and trap strategies with hordes or units that have a long consolidate move as well.
Counter-play is to either multi-charge to trap multiple units, or charge with multiple units to force the opponent to make choices on which unit to try and save.
Worth noting is that the strat can only be used on a unit that hasn't already been selected to move which implies there is either a way to fail falling back, or that this ensures that it doesn't allow someone to try and fallback and fail against something like Shardnets only to pop the strat and try again.
This also may make wargear like Shardnets more impactful since the unit gets to then try and Fallback, which seems like it'd still trigger any rules that prevent them from falling back thus causing said unit to be wiped.
yukishiro1 wrote: European tournaments had the same 1st floor of ruins blocks LOS rule, didn't they? I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest over America vs. Europe, just pointing out that the 9th edition ruins rule are a nerf to melee vis-a-vis the rules most people used in 8th, not a buff.
We did (first floor blocks los) the entire edition, but ETC and BTC and all preparatory events of course went even better than that, and all terrain was L and U shaped walls (ruins) with no holes or windows or doors whatsoever. Those same walls continue to block LOS completely in 9th, because you still can’t shoot something you don’t physically see at all.
To clarify if you have 2 large ruins with no windows etc and gave them the obscuring key word, with a triumph of st k on one side and a marine on the other side of the 2 ruins, the marine can't shoot it as it's not visible in spite of the obsuring wording?
Or are you just not applying that keyword since it isn't needed?
Asking since you're a tea reader with good guesses.
The change to smaller tables seems to be important and 9th is made with small tables as standard.
" The change in board size presents a new challenge for armies that traditionally relied on making the most of the distance between armies to allow their shooting to take its toll. "
yukishiro1 wrote: GW seems to have once again split the baby and pleased nobody.
People keep saying that only for GW to drop more information and sway opinion the other way.
The biggest impact from this rule is likely on it preventing the alpha strike charge with a single unit that traps a unit before consolidating their way deeper into the enemy lines over the course of the game.
Melee will either need to risk a multi-charge that's easier to fail, or hit with more units at the same time to see dividends now, which I think makes melee a mid to late game strategy instead of an early game strat with this change.
Not talking about melee generally, talking about this one particular change. They somehow managed to accomplish the incredible feat of actually increasing the tedium of wrapping while at the same time presenting a way out that makes you still have to go through the tedium, without the reward, in order to at least soak the opponent's CP. This pleases nobody. Nobody thought the problem with wrapping was that it wasn't tedious and technical enough.
yukishiro1 wrote: Not talking about melee generally, talking about this one particular change. They somehow managed to accomplish the incredible feat of actually increasing the tedium of wrapping while at the same time presenting a way out that makes you still have to go through the tedium, without the reward, in order to at least soak the opponent's CP. This pleases nobody. Nobody thought the problem with wrapping was that it wasn't tedious and technical enough.
As I pointed out that it softens Alpha Strike tactics which were prone to creating some rather unfun play experiances, and it eats CP, has a chance of killing important models and it has restrictions so units can't attempt to fallback twice.
We need the Fallback rules to know more about how this fits into rest of the game. Before then it's too early to pass judgement.
The rest of the fallback rules don't matter for this particular point. Their solution to wrapping was to keep all the tedium while letting the other player avoid the consequences for 2CP. That's not a solution that makes anybody happy.
If they were going to nerf wrapping they ought to have done it in a way that spares the tedium.
It's like fixing aggressors by still letting them roll 140 attacks worth of dice and then at the end you can spend 2CP to reduce the amount of damage they do by half. It doesn't fix the problem, which is the tedium of rolling 140 dice worth of attacks.
Huh..I wonder if you could use acid blood & death shriek to abuse this. Get enough gants into an evenly, spend 3 cp, 20 gants die, LRBT takes 20x (6+ on two d6) mortal wounds.
I don't want to prejudice anyone before they check and maybe it's just a thing I've missed, so I'll be putting the weirdness in spoilers:
Spoiler:
Hey, did you look yet? Cool. Space Marines are not present in Armies of the Imperium. They have their own tag.
It wasn't like this a few days ago. I don't think it has a deeper meaning - the list was just too long. They have bundles with no discount to save a few clicks, so I guess they want to save the costumers some seconds of scrolling.
Yeah. This looks like simple sales organization- there is a definite drop off in customer usability when there are too many options, and space marine subfactions were swamping everything else.
The amusing thing is that it highlights the pure redundancy and overlap- ~90 SM products are shared, except with DW, GK and SW.
For the "tripointing is becoming more important crowd", we still don't know if there are any changes to how close combat works. A small tweak to the rules for Charging, Piling In and/or Consolidating can greatly impact the ability to tripoint a unit. If they return the move directly towards the closest enemy model rule that would be a big change. Also if they required all charging models to move as far as possible to get into Engagement Range, that would be a significant change. We will have to wait for more information.
Far more interesting to me is the lack of any Necron rules in Pariah. It only contains the rules for Illuminor Szeras. This has to mean Codex Necrons is right around the corner after 9th Edition is released. No point in Psychic Awakening rules when the entire Codex is getting released with new models and updated rules.
You're happy with a solution that preserves all the tedium of and continues to reward the "gimmick," just not as much as before?
Everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess, but it seems a really weird take.
Not to mention that the "gimmick" of wrapping isn't half as gimmicky as the gimmick of falling back while the enemy you are in combat with has to just stand there and take your whole army's shooting instead of following you.
I agree. Fall back was a gimmicky way for shooting to continue on unhindered so I hope it's been altered. (I personally think it's seen some changes but they really need to get to revealing it as so much hinges on that and the morale changes)
alextroy wrote: For the "tripointing is becoming more important crowd", we still don't know if there are any changes to how close combat works. A small tweak to the rules for Charging, Piling In and/or Consolidating can greatly impact the ability to tripoint a unit. If they return the move directly towards the closest enemy model rule that would be a big change. Also if they required all charging models to move as far as possible to get into Engagement Range, that would be a significant change. We will have to wait for more information.
All those things would be even bigger nerfs to melee. If your suggestion is that people should wait for the whole ruleset before judging because it might be even worse for melee than it currently looks...I'm not sure it really assuages anyone's concerns, but ok I guess?
yukishiro1 wrote: Not to mention that the "gimmick" of wrapping isn't half as gimmicky as the gimmick of falling back while the enemy you are in combat with has to just stand there and take your whole army's shooting instead of following you.
You mean like the gimmick were my unit can't see you running towards them and decide to fall back before you reach them?
We can play that game all day. The game is structured in turns and that means thing happen in a way they don't in real life. It's not a gimmick that your model act on your turn and my models on my turn. It's the convention of the game.
Wakshaani wrote: Hrm. Looking at it more and it notes "may ATTEMPT to Fall Back".
Which means there's a chance of it happening, a chance that it won't.
There's some kind of LD test involved here.
Hrm!
LD test to fall back would make sense, gotta do something to make it easy for space marines but hard for everyone else doncha know.
Necrons have even better leadership though.
A leadership test to fall back seems logical (and would make Night Lords the kings of trapping people in melee), but I almost expect GW to just have players dice off for it instead.
Night Lords are already the "kings of trapping people in melee", which begs the question: if I play "We Have Come For You" does this strategem still work? Which strategem trumps which? If this beats "We Have Come For You" I will not be happy.
yukishiro1 wrote: Not to mention that the "gimmick" of wrapping isn't half as gimmicky as the gimmick of falling back while the enemy you are in combat with has to just stand there and take your whole army's shooting instead of following you.
You mean like the gimmick were my unit can't see you running towards them and decide to fall back before you reach them?
We can play that game all day. The game is structured in turns and that means thing happen in a way they don't in real life. It's not a gimmick that your model act on your turn and my models on my turn. It's the convention of the game.
The other guy was the one talking about gimmicks. So I think you agree with me and made my point for me?
There is something we don't know about that could also massive change to how melee and the whole fallback/tri-point thing works and that's the wordage for the assault move/pile in/consolidate. In previous editions you had to move "The shortest possible" with these particular movements, which would there by make things like wrapping and tri-pointing much harder because a lack of free movement would means you'd have to set something like that up in your movement phase. "move closer" is a 8th edition thing, at least for the assault move.
I'd personally hope they don't do that. The Assault phase has largely been uninteractive during those previous editions, and I would assume "player agency" would be important even to those who "hate" wrapping. If assault movement really does have to be nerfed (and I don't think so), I'd much rather pile in and consolidation distance just be shorted.
yukishiro1 wrote: Not to mention that the "gimmick" of wrapping isn't half as gimmicky as the gimmick of falling back while the enemy you are in combat with has to just stand there and take your whole army's shooting instead of following you.
You mean like the gimmick were my unit can't see you running towards them and decide to fall back before you reach them?
We can play that game all day. The game is structured in turns and that means thing happen in a way they don't in real life. It's not a gimmick that your model act on your turn and my models on my turn. It's the convention of the game.
The other guy was the one talking about gimmicks. So I think you agree with me and made my point for me?
Sorry I misinterpreted your post. The point is correct, just directed toward anyone who thinks Fall Back is a gimmick and not just a rule.
yukishiro1 wrote:
alextroy wrote: For the "tripointing is becoming more important crowd", we still don't know if there are any changes to how close combat works. A small tweak to the rules for Charging, Piling In and/or Consolidating can greatly impact the ability to tripoint a unit. If they return the move directly towards the closest enemy model rule that would be a big change. Also if they required all charging models to move as far as possible to get into Engagement Range, that would be a significant change. We will have to wait for more information.
All those things would be even bigger nerfs to melee. If your suggestion is that people should wait for the whole ruleset before judging because it might be even worse for melee than it currently looks...I'm not sure it really assuages anyone's concerns, but ok I guess?
The point is people are making sweeping judgements on incomplete information. We know that changes are on the way. Seeing the constant drip of small changes, I'm not sure where the final result will end. No one should except those lucky enough to have seen the rules in totality.
Will Close Combat be improved, degraded, or the same in the new Edition? Wait for all the rules to find out.
yukishiro1 wrote: You're happy with a solution that preserves all the tedium of and continues to reward the "gimmick," just not as much as before?.
I love your kneejerk reactions, I really do. But you should realize at some point that I was referring to falling back.
But yes, the accumulating total of changes, particularly this and to overwatch strike me as positive changes. Having costs and consequences rather than just rewards is a good thing for game design.
Will Close Combat be improved, degraded, or the same in the new Edition? Wait for all the rules to find out.
Sure, but the point is this particular decision seems like one that doesn't really please anybody. Retaining wrapping but giving you a 2CP stratagem to get out of a wrap doesn't address anyone who thought it was a gimmick, nor does it please anybody who thought it was a good part of the game. It just nerfs wrapping while retaining the tedium.
If they make other changes that make it harder or almost impossible to wrap in the first place, the stratagem just becomes even weirder as it won't even come up hardly ever, so why was it even needed?
yukishiro1 wrote: You're happy with a solution that preserves all the tedium of and continues to reward the "gimmick," just not as much as before?.
I love your kneejerk reactions, I really do. But you should realize at some point that I was referring to falling back.
But yes, the accumulating total of changes, particularly this and to overwatch strike me as positive changes. Having costs and consequences rather than just rewards is a good thing for game design.
How could you have been referring to falling back as the gimmick that was being changed to have costs and consequences? This doesn't change falling back except to make you able to do it through a wrap for a CP cost. Before this, you couldn't fall back from a wrap. Now, you can. The rewards for falling back have been increased, not counter-balanced.
If this was now the only way to fall back I would agree with you completely. But it clearly isn't, as the 40k facebook account itself confirmed. This is an additional option you get on top of the normal fall back, not a limitation on it.
Based on everything we know, it's even easier and less consequential to fall back than it was before. That may not turn out to be true when the full rules are revealed, but it is based on what we know now.
It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
bullyboy wrote: It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
I'm convinced Slayer and yukishiro come on here just to spread their misery. I wish we could live in a world where you weren't forced to play badly made games by companies you hate. But alas, tis but a dream.
bullyboy wrote: It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
I'm convinced Slayer and yukishiro come on here just to spread their misery. I wish we could live in a world where you weren't forced to play badly made games by companies you hate. But alas, tis but a dream.
When you have invested enough time and money in a game you become a hostage. Every new edition is a pain when the game moves in a completely wrong direction (shallow, gimmicky ccg).
I think GW are trying to steer away the "wrap and trap" tedium by allowing people to get out of it.
I've never played assault units to wrap and trap. Hard hitting assault units are meant to carve stuff up, not sit and hold an enemy in position. That's what tar pit units do. Poxwalkers, Plaguebearers, Nurglings, Scarabs, Rippers, etc are tar pit units. Berserkers, DC, Bloodletters, etc aren't.
With multi-charges harder to pull off and wrap and trap harder to pull off the emphasis is on focus killing a unit. Not to mention 2 CP is a lot considering in a 2k game we start with 12; start deducting pre-game CP usage for multiple detachments, relics, pre-game strats and 2 CP starts to be VERY expensive. I feel most 2k games are going to start at around 8 CP. That's not very many.
8 CP disappear fast. Start blowing CP to save a unit wrapped because you were dumb enough to let said unit get wrapped in the first place then it's on you.
bullyboy wrote: It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
I'm convinced Slayer and yukishiro come on here just to spread their misery. I wish we could live in a world where you weren't forced to play badly made games by companies you hate. But alas, tis but a dream.
When you have invested enough time and money in a game you become a hostage. Every new edition is a pain when the game moves in a completely wrong direction (shallow, gimmicky ccg).
bullyboy wrote: It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
I'm convinced Slayer and yukishiro come on here just to spread their misery. I wish we could live in a world where you weren't forced to play badly made games by companies you hate. But alas, tis but a dream.
When you have invested enough time and money in a game you become a hostage. Every new edition is a pain when the game moves in a completely wrong direction (shallow, gimmicky ccg).
Thats how i feel anyway.
You really are not and if you don't like something you shouldn't be expending so much effort to force something on yourself. I've got a mountain of 40k crap and just ditched it to play Infinity and haven't even felt slightly bad about. Sure I still buy 40k and I still get in the occasional game for fun. But I'm not going to force myself to play. I yeeted right out of 7th edition because I hated it, nothing happened to me.
jivardi wrote: I think GW are trying to steer away the "wrap and trap" tedium by allowing people to get out of it.
I've never played assault units to wrap and trap. Hard hitting assault units are meant to carve stuff up, not sit and hold an enemy in position. That's what tar pit units do. Poxwalkers, Plaguebearers, Nurglings, Scarabs, Rippers, etc are tar pit units. Berserkers, DC, Bloodletters, etc aren't.
With multi-charges harder to pull off and wrap and trap harder to pull off the emphasis is on focus killing a unit. Not to mention 2 CP is a lot considering in a 2k game we start with 12; start deducting pre-game CP usage for multiple detachments, relics, pre-game strats and 2 CP starts to be VERY expensive. I feel most 2k games are going to start at around 8 CP. That's not very many.
8 CP disappear fast. Start blowing CP to save a unit wrapped because you were dumb enough to let said unit get wrapped in the first place then it's on you.
The trouble is this is internally inconsistent in its logic. The change doesn't steer away from wrap and trap by letting people get out of it. You'll still want to wrap and trap every time in 9th based on this, except possibly against extremely elite units - and even then you'd rather try a wrap and trap on the last model than deliberately kill the whole unit.
It's just that they opponent does get an expensive way to escape it - but precisely because it's expensive, you still want to do it in almost all circumstances.
If they thought wrap and trap was bad they should have just got rid of it and rebalanced melee in other ways.
bullyboy wrote: It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
I'm convinced Slayer and yukishiro come on here just to spread their misery. I wish we could live in a world where you weren't forced to play badly made games by companies you hate. But alas, tis but a dream.
This is such a weird thing to say, on so many levels. First of all, why would you let someone get into your head so much that you actually make a post complaining about them allegedly complaining?
Second, we all presumably want a better game. It seems really weird to act like only positive reactions to rules changes are allowed. In fact, it's the negative reactions that are actually useful from a development perspective. Being told "this is all great" doesn't teach anybody anything.
We're all working on incomplete information and this may all somehow come together into a great package. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to talk about the changes in the meantime - the whole reason they're releasing the changes this way is to get people talking. If you aren't interested in talking about the new rules, why come to a thread just to complain about others allegedly complaining? That seems like the height of doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing.
bullyboy wrote: It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
I'm convinced Slayer and yukishiro come on here just to spread their misery. I wish we could live in a world where you weren't forced to play badly made games by companies you hate. But alas, tis but a dream.
This is such a weird thing to say, on so many levels. First of all, why would you let someone get into your head so much that you actually make a post complaining about them allegedly complaining?
Not really though, it it, unless you're being extremely hyperbolic? He literally just wrote "I've observed that some people here complain a lot". Probably took him less than a minute.But you're saying that it must be something deep in his head, gnawing at his psyche, for him to go to the extreme effort of expressing the thought? Come now.
jivardi wrote: I think GW are trying to steer away the "wrap and trap" tedium by allowing people to get out of it.
I've never played assault units to wrap and trap. Hard hitting assault units are meant to carve stuff up, not sit and hold an enemy in position. That's what tar pit units do. Poxwalkers, Plaguebearers, Nurglings, Scarabs, Rippers, etc are tar pit units. Berserkers, DC, Bloodletters, etc aren't.
With multi-charges harder to pull off and wrap and trap harder to pull off the emphasis is on focus killing a unit. Not to mention 2 CP is a lot considering in a 2k game we start with 12; start deducting pre-game CP usage for multiple detachments, relics, pre-game strats and 2 CP starts to be VERY expensive. I feel most 2k games are going to start at around 8 CP. That's not very many.
8 CP disappear fast. Start blowing CP to save a unit wrapped because you were dumb enough to let said unit get wrapped in the first place then it's on you.
The trouble is this is internally inconsistent in its logic. The change doesn't steer away from wrap and trap by letting people get out of it. You'll still want to wrap and trap every time in 9th based on this, except possibly against extremely elite units - and even then you'd rather try a wrap and trap on the last model than deliberately kill the whole unit.
It's just that they opponent does get an expensive way to escape it - but precisely because it's expensive, you still want to do it in almost all circumstances.
If they thought wrap and trap was bad they should have just got rid of it and rebalanced melee in other ways.
It is and it isn't the thibg is tripointing as gamey and rules lawyerly as it is, when your playing competitive it's part of the game so why complain, not to mention fly basically invalidates it. And everything in competitive needs fly.
Also try explaining tripointing to casual players and they just look confused.
This is for qhen tripointing is done to someone who wasn't expecting or aware of it probably.
As GW doesn't like feel bads they are bad for sales and bad for streaming.
bullyboy wrote: It comes up when a unit is surrounded, but not necessarily the victim of a deliberate wrap and trap. I hope the assault phase has changed to change the way wrap and traps have worked in 8th (which are dumb) but still allows for surrounding a unit. Then we need to see the full rules for consequences and abilities to fall back.
There is still so much to be seen and endless speculating that the game is fethed is very short sighted.
I'm convinced Slayer and yukishiro come on here just to spread their misery. I wish we could live in a world where you weren't forced to play badly made games by companies you hate. But alas, tis but a dream.
This is such a weird thing to say, on so many levels. First of all, why would you let someone get into your head so much that you actually make a post complaining about them allegedly complaining?
Not really though, it it, unless you're being extremely hyperbolic? He literally just wrote "I've observed that some people here complain a lot". Probably took him less than a minute.But you're saying that it must be something deep in his head, gnawing at his psyche, for him to go to the extreme effort of expressing the thought? Come now.
Well, no, that isn't literally or figuratively what he said, nor is that what I said. But I'm not interested in getting into a sniping match over a straw man. It's irrelevant, which was my original point. If people don't enjoy talking about the rules they just shouldn't talk about the rules. The nice thing about dakka is it isn't full of people who make everything personal, and I hope it stays that way. I shouldn't have risen to the bait, I just wanted to call it out because it's not what this place should be. There's enough other forums on the internet full of people calling each other haters and white knights and making every disagreement into some personal flaw in the person they're disagreeing with.
yukishiro1 wrote: The nice thing about dakka is it isn't full of people who make everything personal, and I hope it stays that way. I shouldn't have risen to the bait, I just wanted to call it out because it's not what this place should be. There's enough other forums on the internet full of people calling each other haters and white knights and making every disagreement into some personal flaw in the person they're disagreeing with.
That will drive the new narrative system in 9th? And we're talking about the system with endless hundreds of datasheets and faction and subfaction rules that are expanding with no end in sight? Ballooning game time lengths and requiring a stack of books?
Yay.
