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.
You must be new here.
Or just a natural optimist, despite what some people here seem to say to the contrary.
I like the new strategem because it means cleaver tactics to try and prevent fall back are still in. Yet it doesn’t completely handicap someone and limits the strength of the big bomb all in one basket units.
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.
Indeed not literal, that was me being mildly flippant (indicated by the fact it wasn't literal). You did say it was "such a weird thing", and on so many levels, no less, indicating to you that you're more than a little in his head ("so much"). And if I was wrong to interpret his post as an observation about people complaining, it's very odd that you wrote "you make a post complaining about complaining", isn't it? So no, not remotely a straw man. Anyway, if you genuinely want more civility and less sniping I'd recommend you avoid making such exaggerated proclamations.
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.
Indeed not literal, that was me being mildly flippant (indicated by the fact it wasn't literal). You did say it was "such a weird thing", and on so many levels, no less, indicating to you that you're more than a little in his head ("so much"). And if I was wrong to interpret his post as an observation about people complaining, it's very odd that you wrote "you make a post complaining about complaining", isn't it? So no, not remotely a straw man. Anyway, if you genuinely want more civility and less sniping I'd recommend you avoid making such exaggerated proclamations.
Like I said, I'm not interested into getting into it, with you or with him. Please look elsewhere if you want to provoke somebody, you're not going to get it here. I shouldn't have responded to him either.
So instead of changing the original rule to solve the problem we get a once per turn workaround
combine that with the once per turn workaround for Overwatch, less CP and other possible costly Stratagems, and anti-horde rules and now we get into full MSU Edition
the only thing this all leads to is to that you need multiple units to charge/fight at the same time
as soon as there is only one close combat going on,the melee unit has a disadvantage
so nothing really changes, and if we need again LOS to charge, the big buff to make melee armies work is just a nerf that makes it more difficult to play
kodos wrote: So instead of changing the original rule to solve the problem we get a once per turn workaround
combine that with the once per turn workaround for Overwatch, less CP and other possible costly Stratagems, and anti-horde rules and now we get into full MSU Edition
the only thing this all leads to is to that you need multiple units to charge/fight at the same time
as soon as there is only one close combat going on,the melee unit has a disadvantage
so nothing really changes, and if we need again LOS to charge, the big buff to make melee armies work is just a nerf that makes it more difficult to play
So many assumptions with no information on how falling back works, how melee itself works, or even how charging works. Not to mention that a fair number of armies are going to be sitting at the same amount of CP or more, it's only the spammiest of lists who need to turn some of their points spent on redundant troops and HQs into more valuable contributing members of their army since the spam is dead and they just need to move on. It means less tax and more room for "the good stuff" which doesn't always need CP support.
Plus people should be looking at using their CP smarter to win games over spamming the same things over and over. Looking at you "bomb" lists.
Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.
Heck, we don't even have enough information to even confidently walk through a turn of how the game plays at this point.
Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past
Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...
tneva82 wrote: Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past
Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...
I am not against criticising the faults of the game, but pointing at every scrap of information without the full context of the rest of the rules related to that scrap and saying that it's all bad is a bit much.
I get the saying about broken clocks and all, but maybe it's time to stop going cuckoo over every update.
Honestly I think peopld are confusing "calm down until we know for sure how it all works" for "everything is fine". I mean the former, not the latter when I talk about the hysteria I keep seeing.
And before anyone brings up a "where theres smoke..." rebuttal, yeah it could be smoke, or your glasses might be dirty leading you to not recognize the real situation.
As I've said: it's never to late to sell your army. Waiting a couple more weeks before committing isn't going to hurt anyone who wants to sell because the meta looks bad right now.
Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.
we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units
of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now
and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well
this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up
tneva82 wrote: Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past
Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...
I am not against criticising the faults of the game, but pointing at every scrap of information without the full context of the rest of the rules related to that scrap and saying that it's all bad is a bit much.
I get the saying about broken clocks and all, but maybe it's time to stop going cuckoo over every update.
I think the issue is with you being rational and having restrain, dakka is built upon knee jerk reactions and pessimism.
Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.
we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units
of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now
and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well
this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up
If we don't know them, how can someone tell you about them? But chaff units are generally large cheap units that do nothing else, so you will want large units for chaff or you fill out your detachments too quickly.
As I've said: it's never to late to sell your army. Waiting a couple more weeks before committing isn't going to hurt anyone who wants to sell because the meta looks bad right now.
Who said its going to look bad?
I get the feeling that the suggested change to the game is something you don't like and try to argue against it
MSU being the future of melee is very likley
same as MMU being the way to go for shooting
chaff will be essential for elite armies as was the loyal 32 before
if this turns out to be good or bad is a different story, something we won't know until 1-2 years in and the first Codex books tells us how many of the new core restrictions will be ignored
Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.
we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units
of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now
and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well
this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up
Cite the rules that show melee will be harder to set up.
Oh wait, you can't because we don"t even have the rules for charging yet.
And I don't get how your opponent will "waste" your CP unless you're playing against very specific armies like Vect.
Chaffe is big in 8th, and will likely continue to see valuable use in 9th (cheap "action" takers for example), even if taking a triple battalion has lost its luster.
MSU has been a popular approach to 40k since I got back into the game in 5th, and likely even longer than that. I don't think we'll ever see it go away as the "obvious pick" unless something fundamental changes about the game.
Something more fundamental than removing blast templates at least.
If we don't know them, how can someone tell you about them? But chaff units are generally large cheap units that do nothing else, so you will want large units for chaff or you fill out your detachments too quickly.
you can tell which way the designers want the core rules to go, if this works out, Codex rules will tell
and chaff does not need to be large, 3 units of 5 or 1 unit of 15 just depends on how long the units can survive
with less LOS, and anti-horde it looks like the chance to get 2 out of 3 units doing the job will be easier than have enough models from the 1 unit survive
and we are not limited to 1 Detachment, and if you are taking the standard one, very few people will fill it up anyway as the units that will get the job done are not in the core section
As I've said: it's never to late to sell your army. Waiting a couple more weeks before committing isn't going to hurt anyone who wants to sell because the meta looks bad right now.
Who said its going to look bad?
I get the feeling that the suggested change to the game is something you don't like and try to argue against it
MSU being the future of melee is very likley
same as MMU being the way to go for shooting
chaff will be essential for elite armies as was the loyal 32 before
if this turns out to be good or bad is a different story, something we won't know until 1-2 years in and the first Codex books tells us how many of the new core restrictions will be ignored
I have a feeling your trying to stuff straw into an old shirt and call it my point.
People have spent several hundred posts saying that X, Y, and/or Z means hordes are dead, melee is dead, 9th is DoA (though that got more over in 40k General than here exactly) and I've even seen people make claims about specific factions being screwed over with no context of the greater rules or even points changes.
And MSU has always been a thing due to how leadership works. The game needs to make a fundamental shift in how it handles large units to offset leadership enough to make it feel "worthwhile" to take big units.
Cite the rules that show melee will be harder to set up.
Oh wait, you can't because we don"t even have the rules for charging yet.
and?
1 unit can Overwatch per turn, and 1 unit can not prevented from falling back per turn
I don't need to know how charge will work to know that if there is only 1 melee unit that charges per turn that it won't work out
for the same reason you will need to be dangerous on more than 1 places to make it not obvious for the opponent on which unit he will spend his Stratagems
Cite the rules that show melee will be harder to set up.
Oh wait, you can't because we don"t even have the rules for charging yet.
and?
1 unit can Overwatch per turn, and 1 unit can not prevented from falling back per turn
I don't need to know how charge will work to know that if there is only 1 melee unit that charges per turn that it won't work out
for the same reason you will need to be dangerous on more than 1 places to make it not obvious for the opponent on which unit he will spend his Stratagems
so melee will be harder to set up
Deathstars being exceptions only proves the rule. They're basically called "bombs" now but a single big unit surrounded by MSUs is a common build even now.
And if only one unit can Overwatch once, that makes getting into melee easier, and abilities that shut off Overwatch even more powerful since they dictate which units will be allowed to use that single Overwatch.
The ability to escape really only hurts alpha strike strategies that rely on one bomb unit hitting on turn 1 and then consolidating and trapping as many other units as possible over the course of the game.
And if they hit a castle they likely have the ability to trap several units as well.
Mid to late game melee actually looks stronger thanks to the change to Overwatch, which seems like a good balance.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And if playing on the minimum recommended board size, you’ve less distance to cross, and your opponent less space to withdraw into.
Wrong on first, correct on second. Distances are measured from center so gap between armies is same regardless of board size.
tneva82 wrote: Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past
Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...
I am not against criticising the faults of the game, but pointing at every scrap of information without the full context of the rest of the rules related to that scrap and saying that it's all bad is a bit much.
I get the saying about broken clocks and all, but maybe it's time to stop going cuckoo over every update.
I think the issue is with you being rational and having restrain, dakka is built upon knee jerk reactions and pessimism.
Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.
we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units
of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now
and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well
this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up
If we don't know them, how can someone tell you about them? But chaff units are generally large cheap units that do nothing else, so you will want large units for chaff or you fill out your detachments too quickly.
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.
We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.
NO idea, huh? Like I said, we have 20+ years of data proving GW forgets even basic grammar for writing rules. Not to mention managing to screw each edition 4th onwards middle of the edition or even early on.
You SHOULD be expecting the worst out of them. You have no reason NOT to.
We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.
NO idea, huh? Like I said, we have 20+ years of data proving GW forgets even basic grammar for writing rules. Not to mention managing to screw each edition 4th onwards middle of the edition or even early on.
You SHOULD be expecting the worst out of them. You have no reason NOT to.
And as mad doc says, you're still here. I've said it before but the eternal negativity you bring must be tiring, take a break from the game & the forums for a bit.
Most people have 20 years of enjoying a game with friends and happy memories for the most part. None of that is altered by a comma being misplaced or a period missing.
Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."
But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.
Except Necrons already have odd targeted buffs instead of auras don't they? This crumbs without context approach is great at keeping us engaged but it's aggravating.
Eldarain wrote: Except Necrons already have odd targeted buffs instead of auras don't they? This crumbs without context approach is great at keeping us engaged but it's aggravating.
The 8th edition Cryptek Reanimation improvement buff is an aura.
sieGermans wrote: Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."
But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.
Source? I think I missed that. Did you mean the buff from the Reanimator?
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?
I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.
That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.
sieGermans wrote: Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."
But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.
Source? I think I missed that. Did you mean the buff from the Reanimator?
Eldarain wrote: Except Necrons already have odd targeted buffs instead of auras don't they? This crumbs without context approach is great at keeping us engaged but it's aggravating.
Only My Will be Done is a targeted buff. Everything else is an aura.
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?
I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.
That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.
Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.
sieGermans wrote: Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."
But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.
Yet marines are looking to keep their auras...
We have 1 ability that is targeted. Doesn't mean every aura gets rewritten. Marine ones for one aren't. No reason to think cryptek aura is either.
Saying "there's targeted ability in 9th ed, all auras become targeted ability" makes as much sense as saying "there's targeted abilities in 8th, no auras exist in 8th". One can live without negating other. You can have both aura's AND targeted abilities. 8th ed shows both can exist in same game. Same way as the new fallback stratagem for 3 pointed doesn't mean existing rules that gives such ability in certain situations(like knights vs infantry) are going to be removed. Functionally both can exist. Nothing in stratagem says knight ability gets rewritten so making that assumption is pre-emptive
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And if playing on the minimum recommended board size, you’ve less distance to cross, and your opponent less space to withdraw into.
Wrong on first, correct on second. Distances are measured from center so gap between armies is same regardless of board size.
If it's a melee vs shooting army the first point would 'generally' be true too.
Whilst the deployment zones are same distance apart, having less space behind means things are going to be deployed closer to the enemy by the shooting army.
So whilst minimum gap remains the same, in reality, I would expect the melee army to still be starting slightly closer to the shooting army
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?
I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.
That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.
Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.
The mute function is useless due to how much moaning he does and how much interaction people have with that moaning, you end up reading it.
He didn't ask him to leave, he suggested he should take a break. I agree with that, however I think he thrives off the negativity, he's basically Tony Sopranos mother, and there's a few of them around here.
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?
I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.
That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.
Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.
The mute function is useless due to how much moaning he does and how much interaction people have with that moaning, you end up reading it.
He didn't ask him to leave, he suggested he should take a break. I agree with that, however I think he thrives off the negativity, he's basically Tony Sopranos mother, and there's a few of them around here.
He did explicitly ask him to "do everyone a favour and leave". Slayer-Fan123's opinions are as valuable as anyone elses and he does bring up interesting points an relevant criticism within his posts.
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?
I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.
That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.
Woah woah, chill out here. I don't agree with the negativity from Slayer-Fan123 either, but his contributions are on-topic and specific to the content. Asking someone "to leave" is uncalled for. Just mute him if you don't want to read his posts.
The mute function is useless due to how much moaning he does and how much interaction people have with that moaning, you end up reading it.
He didn't ask him to leave, he suggested he should take a break. I agree with that, however I think he thrives off the negativity, he's basically Tony Sopranos mother, and there's a few of them around here.
He did explicitly ask him to "do everyone a favour and leave". Slayer-Fan123's opinions are as valuable as anyone elses and he does bring up interesting points an relevant criticism within his posts.
The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.
Dragging it back on topic though, do we think this coming Sunday will announce the indominus box sets 2 week presumed preorder window? I have a feeling the stand alone rulebook won't be until the week after its release.
The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.
This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.
Dragging it back on topic though, do we think this coming Sunday will announce the indominus box sets 2 week presumed preorder window? I have a feeling the stand alone rulebook won't be until the week after its release.
We've seen 40k releases every 2 weeks since PA7, so I think they'll continue the pattern. Next week will be something like AoS Aelves on July 4th, followed by a two-week preorder for Indomitus on July 11th.
xttz wrote: This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.
End up as?
So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?
xttz wrote: This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.
End up as?
So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?
I have a feeling morale is one of the bigger things they've messed around with, so it could be.
Unfortunately, my guess for how the main morale mechanic works is...also not friendly to hordes. They've called it "Attrition" and are mentioning that it's better for Medium Size Units. My guess is that the penalty you take on your main turn morale check will be based on total casualties you've taken throughout the game (rather than casualties this turn) and you'll get a bonus to LD tests if you have 6+ and 11+ models in your unit - directly incentivizing taking things that get hit harder by blasts via a second mechanic.
Ultimately the game can become MSUhammer and I won't be that heartbroken, particularly if they give me functional transport rules (just allow models to disembark after moving at the end of the movement phase ffs, units in transports should be FASTER than units on foot!) as it will mean a hugely trivialized CP mechanic compared to now where the standard is a big shagnasty unit that gets 10 CPs pumped into it by battery detachments.
Maybe Fall Back requires a morale test? God that'd be real real nice. But I think "attempt to fall back" is ultimately just meaningless language based on the fact that the strat gives you multiple opportunities for models in the unit to get themselves killed.
xttz wrote: This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.
End up as?
So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?
I have a feeling morale is one of the bigger things they've messed around with, so it could be.
Unfortunately, my guess for how the main morale mechanic works is...also not friendly to hordes. They've called it "Attrition" and are mentioning that it's better for Medium Size Units. My guess is that the penalty you take on your main turn morale check will be based on total casualties you've taken throughout the game (rather than casualties this turn) and you'll get a bonus to LD tests if you have 6+ and 11+ models in your unit - directly incentivizing taking things that get hit harder by blasts via a second mechanic.
Ultimately the game can become MSUhammer and I won't be that heartbroken, particularly if they give me functional transport rules (just allow models to disembark after moving at the end of the movement phase ffs, units in transports should be FASTER than units on foot!) as it will mean a hugely trivialized CP mechanic compared to now where the standard is a big shagnasty unit that gets 10 CPs pumped into it by battery detachments.
Maybe Fall Back requires a morale test? God that'd be real real nice. But I think "attempt to fall back" is ultimately just meaningless language based on the fact that the strat gives you multiple opportunities for models in the unit to get themselves killed.
There is a fundamental issue in morale that small units side stepped though. Losing 1 member from a 15 man squad shouldn't be anywhere near as debilitating to a morale check as losing 1 member from a 5 man squad, but that isn't what current morale reflects, within the current rules it is the opposite.
I do tend to agree that morale should be attentional across a full game. It needs to be more of a percentage of unit lost, as opposed to number within a unit lost though. To counter the downside to holistically small units (elite units) you give them very high leadership, and/or fearless.
A 5 man primaris squad should be more compromised by morale than a 10 man squad if both lose 2 members, but a 5 man terminator squad losing 2 members should be more resilient to the effects
That would still favour MSU though. It's hard for 5 strong squads to get enough to really worry without getting simply wiped out. Getting casualties on 2 turns without getting wiped out? Even slimmer. So unless 2nd morale test happens even without casualties hard to see morale worry 5 strong squads.
xttz wrote: This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.
End up as?
So, speculation on how fall back has changed? Will it be a Leadership test or something else?
I have a feeling morale is one of the bigger things they've messed around with, so it could be.
Unfortunately, my guess for how the main morale mechanic works is...also not friendly to hordes. They've called it "Attrition" and are mentioning that it's better for Medium Size Units. My guess is that the penalty you take on your main turn morale check will be based on total casualties you've taken throughout the game (rather than casualties this turn) and you'll get a bonus to LD tests if you have 6+ and 11+ models in your unit - directly incentivizing taking things that get hit harder by blasts via a second mechanic.
Ultimately the game can become MSUhammer and I won't be that heartbroken, particularly if they give me functional transport rules (just allow models to disembark after moving at the end of the movement phase ffs, units in transports should be FASTER than units on foot!) as it will mean a hugely trivialized CP mechanic compared to now where the standard is a big shagnasty unit that gets 10 CPs pumped into it by battery detachments.
Maybe Fall Back requires a morale test? God that'd be real real nice. But I think "attempt to fall back" is ultimately just meaningless language based on the fact that the strat gives you multiple opportunities for models in the unit to get themselves killed.
Morale. I started looking at a few armies where there are LD reduction/increase abilities. For the most part, I don't think they have been utilized much in 8th. I do think these will play a much bigger role in 9th and these abilities are scattered throughout the books I've been looking at.
sieGermans wrote: Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."
But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.
Yet marines are looking to keep their auras...
We have 1 ability that is targeted. Doesn't mean every aura gets rewritten. Marine ones for one aren't. No reason to think cryptek aura is either.
Saying "there's targeted ability in 9th ed, all auras become targeted ability" makes as much sense as saying "there's targeted abilities in 8th, no auras exist in 8th". One can live without negating other. You can have both aura's AND targeted abilities. 8th ed shows both can exist in same game. Same way as the new fallback stratagem for 3 pointed doesn't mean existing rules that gives such ability in certain situations(like knights vs infantry) are going to be removed. Functionally both can exist. Nothing in stratagem says knight ability gets rewritten so making that assumption is pre-emptive
Dudeface wrote: The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.
If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.
Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.
xttz wrote: This. I come here to read news & rumours on 40k, not the same pointless vendetta every day. Ignoring posters doesn't help because the aim of provocative hyperbole is to get quoted and generate attention.
Unfortunately if it's not called out and gets allowed to fester, the forum would just end up as another toxic Internet cesspit like 4chan tg.
In all honesty, this place is already much more toxic than tg, Over there you just need to skim over and filter out a few trolls, here everything is an endlessness pit of passive aggressiveness and grudges where even the productive conversations are often laced with seething hostility. This isn’t unique to here though, the entire design of message board culture encourages it.
I wouldn't mind if 9th just straight up killed horde style armies. Nothing about them I personally like. From their poor price per point to there not being much of a way to make them good while not making them too good.
It was a poor plan to introduce an army concept of take like 150 weak infantry dudes vs 30 elite infantry dudes in a dice game. What we ended up with over the years is needing to make elite infantry tougher which lead to weapons needing more shots to kill the tougher elite infantry which inevitably meant those same guns kill weak infantry even more.
I think they have it about right with Guard with smallish weak units that cap objectives and protect the big guns while being a small threat to other weak units. But Tyranids and Orks goofed it. People want massive blobs of guants or boyz to steamroll and it just borks the game up if they can.
So I would be happy if GW redefined what a horde army was. Like
little Jimmy shouldn't have to figure out how to get $300 worth of guants for his horde tyranids.
We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.
NO idea, huh? Like I said, we have 20+ years of data proving GW forgets even basic grammar for writing rules. Not to mention managing to screw each edition 4th onwards middle of the edition or even early on.
You SHOULD be expecting the worst out of them. You have no reason NOT to.
You do understand that the people who worked.on 8th and 9th aren't the same people that worked on editions 20 years ago right? I mean the only long-standing staff member we know of who is working on 40k is Cruddace and I haven't seen hide nor hair from him this entire reveal, it's all been Stu Black.
You're taking years of data from other people and then using it to point fingers at different people all because the same company signs their checks.
And I get that I tend to have too much faith in humanity, but this feels rather cynical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sieGermans wrote: Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."
But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.
Yeah, targetted auras could really be a thing in the new edition beyond just the Necrons and that'd have a major impact on the game.
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?
I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.
That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.
Don't get me wrong, I never intended to quash debate or say we shouldn't try to understand the rules with what little we know. Heck, you can even see me talk about how I think some of the changes will soften single-unit alpha strikes in favor of more coordinated mid to late game melee pushes.
I just feel the wailing and gnashing of teeth about everything being useless, broken or otherwise dead everytime GW shows us anything to kill conversation because it always circles around to a circle jerk of how GW is ruining 40k again.
Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).
sieGermans wrote: Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."
But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.
Yet marines are looking to keep their auras...
We have 1 ability that is targeted. Doesn't mean every aura gets rewritten. Marine ones for one aren't. No reason to think cryptek aura is either.
Saying "there's targeted ability in 9th ed, all auras become targeted ability" makes as much sense as saying "there's targeted abilities in 8th, no auras exist in 8th". One can live without negating other. You can have both aura's AND targeted abilities. 8th ed shows both can exist in same game. Same way as the new fallback stratagem for 3 pointed doesn't mean existing rules that gives such ability in certain situations(like knights vs infantry) are going to be removed. Functionally both can exist. Nothing in stratagem says knight ability gets rewritten so making that assumption is pre-emptive
I'd argue that the Reanimator has a "targeted aura" due to the targetted unit needing to stay in range to get the bonus.
I could see GW implimenting more of these sorts of buffs, and even retroactively changing others via day 1 errata as it means castling becomes less favored instead of a sort of "power pair" playstyle.
BrotherGecko wrote: I wouldn't mind if 9th just straight up killed horde style armies. Nothing about them I personally like. From their poor price per point to there not being much of a way to make them good while not making them too good.
It was a poor plan to introduce an army concept of take like 150 weak infantry dudes vs 30 elite infantry dudes in a dice game. What we ended up with over the years is needing to make elite infantry tougher which lead to weapons needing more shots to kill the tougher elite infantry which inevitably meant those same guns kill weak infantry even more.
I think they have it about right with Guard with smallish weak units that cap objectives and protect the big guns while being a small threat to other weak units. But Tyranids and Orks goofed it. People want massive blobs of guants or boyz to steamroll and it just borks the game up if they can.
So I would be happy if GW redefined what a horde army was. Like
little Jimmy shouldn't have to figure out how to get $300 worth of guants for his horde tyranids.
That is just your opinion my friend. Doesn't mean much. Here let me try: I like playing hordes (though 150 is a limit for me, over that it becomes tedious), and I feel my opponents like playing against them (again, up to 150). I play hordes rather fast, I sometimes win, and I sometimes lose. Lots of gaunts is thematic.
I don't mind playing against knights (they feel weak and I like a challenge, but aside from that it's cool facing giant robots from time to time). Yep, my opinion, and no one gives a feth hah hah.
But some will shout their opinion for whatever reason (though no one cares really) and write "GW should not have put allowed them in regular games), fuelled by angry nerdrage.
The truth is hordes, elites, knights (and such), all types of armies bring diversity to the game, at the cost of balance yes. It is the price of having diversity.
Dudeface wrote: The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.
If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.
Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.
The team used to be a lot smaller back from 2nd to 3rd, and even up through 5th. I'd argue that the popularity.of 5th brought in a fair bit of new blood, but the rules team was still largely the old guard who mainly work on AoS (though Ward left years ago now). Cruddace is the only one from the Old Guard still running around and he's been rather proactive in trying to gather player feedback and other data at large events, though I haven't seen GW mention him for anything in quite a while, so maybe he quietly stepped down or left?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).
It's honestly something I'd like to see myaelf. Like, we can keep auras (KFF is a good example of an aura worth keeping) but I feel like anything that gives buffs to die rolls of any kind should be a targeted aura. Be it re-rolls, +/-1 rolls, or whatever.
Dudeface wrote: The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.
If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.
Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.
The team used to be a lot smaller back from 2nd to 3rd, and even up through 5th. I'd argue that the popularity.of 5th brought in a fair bit of new blood, but the rules team was still largely the old guard who mainly work on AoS (though Ward left years ago now). Cruddace is the only one from the Old Guard still running around and he's been rather proactive in trying to gather player feedback and other data at large events, though I haven't seen GW mention him for anything in quite a while, so maybe he quietly stepped down or left?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).
It's honestly something I'd like to see myaelf. Like, we can keep auras (KFF is a good example of an aura worth keeping) but I feel like anything that gives buffs to die rolls of any kind should be a targeted aura. Be it re-rolls, +/-1 rolls, or whatever.
Cruddace was at LVO as head of the rules teams iirc
Not Online!!! wrote: there's also issues with certain armies , which will keep their rules, just ignoring morale more or less for free.
With GW wanting to make morale more important we could be seeing a rework on how that'll work as well.
I say "could" because I honestly don't expect it. They kind of dropped the ball in 8h and haven't found a good way to represent morale on the tabletop, but they can always prove me wrong.
Dudeface wrote: The issue is that "they've been crap for 20 years and you should expect this edition to be crap as well" is nothing other than subjective hyperbole. More importantly it's how many times it gets repeated in this thread from the same person.
If you want more specific and relevant criticism, this is the same team that messed up the 3rd+ edition framework with 6th and 7th, and letting them make their own edition from scratch had the predictable result of streamlining a bit then running into all the same problems, even bloat as time passed, bloating up way faster than 3rd+ ever did.
Also they made one of the guys who was a major reason they took author credits off of codexes head of the rules department for some incomprehensible reason.
The team used to be a lot smaller back from 2nd to 3rd, and even up through 5th. I'd argue that the popularity.of 5th brought in a fair bit of new blood, but the rules team was still largely the old guard who mainly work on AoS (though Ward left years ago now). Cruddace is the only one from the Old Guard still running around and he's been rather proactive in trying to gather player feedback and other data at large events, though I haven't seen GW mention him for anything in quite a while, so maybe he quietly stepped down or left?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Wouldn't it be grand if reroll auras had to target just a single unit per turn Combine that with missions that require armies to secure areas of the table to score points rather than just kill all enemies, and we may just see the end of the "castle" which I hate. This is not medieval warfare. I think everyone is tired of marine reroll everything, so hopefully that has been taken onboard by GW and the playtesters (I know, it's marines). Also, get rid of Aggressors shooting twice if stationary, 6+D6 shots is enough for one model, no need to double it (this point just reiterates the needless rolling of too many dice).
It's honestly something I'd like to see myaelf. Like, we can keep auras (KFF is a good example of an aura worth keeping) but I feel like anything that gives buffs to die rolls of any kind should be a targeted aura. Be it re-rolls, +/-1 rolls, or whatever.
Cruddace was at LVO as head of the rules teams iirc
Right, but he hasn't been involved in any of the marketing for 9th and Stu Black has been running around as the head of the rules studio manager, so I wonder if they handed 9th over to Stu and Cruddace has stepped down from running 40k, or what. He's basically the last of the old guard after all.
Not Online!!! wrote: there's also issues with certain armies , which will keep their rules, just ignoring morale more or less for free.
With GW wanting to make morale more important we could be seeing a rework on how that'll work as well.
I say "could" because I honestly don't expect it. They kind of dropped the ball in 8h and haven't found a good way to represent morale on the tabletop, but they can always prove me wrong.
Loyalists will either be immune or practically immune to any morale mechanics. They always have been. Gw just can't stand to see the "heroes" break and run.
Not Online!!! wrote: there's also issues with certain armies , which will keep their rules, just ignoring morale more or less for free.
With GW wanting to make morale more important we could be seeing a rework on how that'll work as well.
I say "could" because I honestly don't expect it. They kind of dropped the ball in 8h and haven't found a good way to represent morale on the tabletop, but they can always prove me wrong.
Loyalists will either be immune or practically immune to any morale mechanics. They always have been. Gw just can't stand to see the "heroes" break and run.
Yeah, this is the big problem with morale in 40k. When marines functionally ignore something, it becomes kind of a forgotten mechanic because marines are 80% of the armies in the game seemingly.
But Morale could be a good thing for the game - if GW did with it what it seems like is the default reason for Morale to exist in most wargames: As a way to reduce the effectiveness of a unit without destroying it outright.
That's typically what morale does - allow yout o interact with an enemy without totally killing them, reducing the lethality of the game overall. Morale is there so that a unit can either run away, or get suppressed, or hide for a turn and then come back in a later turn to affect the game. Morale in 8th is just a cherry on top of the model-blender that is turn 1 and 2.
How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"
If we're discussing rationality we should probably ask why you're still here in that case? Does it seem rational to you to continue to play a game you clearly hate, from a company you have nothing but disdain for?
I don't entirely agree with Clockwork Zion's attitude that we need to wait until we see all the rules as it seems like it just cuts down on useful discussion - we can debate what we already know and we can attempt to interpret how the rules will look even with incomplete information. I'd say GW themselves aren't helping the situation by releasing incomplete information so slowly but I don't think you can shut down debate just be constantly repeating how we don't have all the information.
That said, if you're so convinced GW are a terrible company that makes bad games and 9th will just be more of the same you could do everyone a favour and leave, especially as all your contributions seem to be couched in that negativity.
Ghaz wrote: Today on Warhammer 40,000 Daily they will be covering Psychic Awakening: Pariah:
Today's #New40K show takes a first look inside the cover of Psychic Awakening: Pariah.
Well biscuits. Guess we'll have to wait for today's faction focus for more 9th info.
....maybe. We could get a Codex Orks again.
why they are doing it like this is absolutely beyond me. "Huhurr did you know, this weapon is a Blast weapon!" Yeah GW we know.
Most of it seems to be aimed at new players, or people unfamiliar with various armies. Think of it more as a sales pitch about how great a given army is more than a sneak peak for 9th and it makes more sense.
I think they may have left themselves a little too much time to fill between the announcement and the release of 9th. It felt like they were scraping the barrel at times last week but now they've just decided to abandon their 9th edition previews altogether. Not sure who's doing their marketing strategy but I'd argue the Monday and Friday shows are the ones where you really want to get some juicy info out there: give people something to talk about over the weekend to keep momentum going and get people excited for the week ahead with some cool new info. They seem to be doing the opposite and putting all the really dull content on those days.
ClockworkZion wrote: Most of it seems to be aimed at new players, or people unfamiliar with various armies. Think of it more as a sales pitch about how great a given army is more than a sneak peak for 9th and it makes more sense.
"The new rules also apply to this army! WOW!" isn't especially useful to anyone, new or otherwise.
Ghaz wrote: Today on Warhammer 40,000 Daily they will be covering Psychic Awakening: Pariah:
Today's #New40K show takes a first look inside the cover of Psychic Awakening: Pariah.
Well biscuits. Guess we'll have to wait for today's faction focus for more 9th info.
....maybe. We could get a Codex Orks again.
why they are doing it like this is absolutely beyond me. "Huhurr did you know, this weapon is a Blast weapon!" Yeah GW we know.
And vehicles can shoot while locked in close combat now! Can you believe that vehicles can shoot while locked in close combat? If you didn't know, vehicles can shoot while locked in close combat!
Slipspace wrote: I think they may have left themselves a little too much time to fill between the announcement and the release of 9th. It felt like they were scraping the barrel at times last week but now they've just decided to abandon their 9th edition previews altogether. Not sure who's doing their marketing strategy but I'd argue the Monday and Friday shows are the ones where you really want to get some juicy info out there: give people something to talk about over the weekend to keep momentum going and get people excited for the week ahead with some cool new info. They seem to be doing the opposite and putting all the really dull content on those days.
Last week I assumed Monday and Friday's eps were filler since they started late and seemed to be trying to pad time.
This ep is at least tied to a new 40k release beyond just "look how pretty the new models are in colors that aren't Ultramarines Blue!", so I can't fault it, I just wanted more info for 9th right now. Though I have to say yesterday's announcement showed me that Pariah has no longevity for Necron players since they didn't put the new Necron units in the book, and a codex is coming sometime after the edition drops. Feels like a missed opportunity to me I guess.
It doesn't help that the few times GW has answered questions they avoid any of the hot button questions everyone has whenever they come up in the chat. I've watched them ignore people asking about something like Falling Back to answer a question like "will our codexes still be valid?"
ClockworkZion wrote: Most of it seems to be aimed at new players, or people unfamiliar with various armies. Think of it more as a sales pitch about how great a given army is more than a sneak peak for 9th and it makes more sense.
"The new rules also apply to this army! WOW!" isn't especially useful to anyone, new or otherwise.
I never said it was useful I just said that I think they're more like ads than anything intended to be useful.
Ghaz wrote: Today on Warhammer 40,000 Daily they will be covering Psychic Awakening: Pariah:
Today's #New40K show takes a first look inside the cover of Psychic Awakening: Pariah.
Well biscuits. Guess we'll have to wait for today's faction focus for more 9th info.
....maybe. We could get a Codex Orks again.
why they are doing it like this is absolutely beyond me. "Huhurr did you know, this weapon is a Blast weapon!" Yeah GW we know.
Most of it seems to be aimed at new players, or people unfamiliar with various armies. Think of it more as a sales pitch about how great a given army is more than a sneak peak for 9th and it makes more sense.
Rubbish. 'Things you don't know about are changing,' isn't useful for new players.
Especially given how much of the article is structured around getting existing players to go out and buy units X, Y and Z because they were previously neglected and now a gun on one of them has blast.
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.
Indeed not literal, that was me being mildly flippant (indicated by the fact it wasn't literal). You did say it was "such a weird thing", and on so many levels, no less, indicating to you that you're more than a little in his head ("so much"). And if I was wrong to interpret his post as an observation about people complaining, it's very odd that you wrote "you make a post complaining about complaining", isn't it? So no, not remotely a straw man. Anyway, if you genuinely want more civility and less sniping I'd recommend you avoid making such exaggerated proclamations.
Like I said, I'm not interested into getting into it, with you or with him. Please look elsewhere if you want to provoke somebody, you're not going to get it here. I shouldn't have responded to him either.
IanVanCheese wrote: Yeah I guess I'll just be grabbing Illuminor for now. Shame, was hoping for a few stopgap rules like a build your dynasty rules or something.
His rules may only be in Pariah and not in the Necron Codex though. It'll be awhile until we know that though.
IanVanCheese wrote: Yeah I guess I'll just be grabbing Illuminor for now. Shame, was hoping for a few stopgap rules like a build your dynasty rules or something.
His rules may only be in Pariah and not in the Necron Codex though. It'll be awhile until we know that though.
IanVanCheese wrote: Yeah I guess I'll just be grabbing Illuminor for now. Shame, was hoping for a few stopgap rules like a build your dynasty rules or something.
His rules may only be in Pariah and not in the Necron Codex though. It'll be awhile until we know that though.
Not a chance they leave him out of the codex.
Yeah, his rules will surely be in the codex. Especially since that is the only Necron rules they included in Pariah.
So, looks like no new info today besides that one secondary objective. I thought the acrobatic grace thing may have been a rule they added to Banshees to make them not trash, but nope, don't be silly lol, it's a "preview" of the rule Shining Spears have had since the index...
Definitely a weak book overall, even more so when you realize there is plenty of room for Harlequin or Deathwatch content there. What a really strange decision.
the_scotsman wrote: So, looks like no new info today besides that one secondary objective. I thought the acrobatic grace thing may have been a rule they added to Banshees to make them not trash, but nope, don't be silly lol, it's a "preview" of the rule Shining Spears have had since the index...
Did they ever really say it's a "preview" with regards to Aerobatic Grace? Felt more like one of those pesky "Hey, this is a thing that this unit in this faction has!" bits.
Not necessarily "new" info, but I felt like these were actually fairly informative bits:
The best thing for Craftworlds in the new edition is that you only need to include one Detachment to get the most Command points for your army. This not only nets you more Command points than you used to have, but ensures you’re now also on an even footing with other factions that could easily generate more in the past.
I think that the point increases will initially challenge players as they try to fit in all of the units they previously fielded. It’s important to remember that every faction is feeling similar increases though, so it’s not a problem unique to you! I also suspect that, although the Craftworlds army is great when fielding a single Detachment, some players will miss the advantages of cherry-picking units from various craftworlds. A thing to keep in mind is that most competitive Craftworlds armies used to only start with 8-10 Command points, so if you really feel you need those Saim-Hann Shining Spears along with your Alaitoc Rangers, consider taking the secondary Craftworld in a Patrol Detachment alongside your main host.
Standard caveat of the points increases may vary but it was a bit nice to get a bit of insight that wasn't just from the studio about Command Points and Detachments.
Did you know that the new general rules that apply to everyone also apply to Craftworld forces??? WOW!
And I can't be the only one who thought the Shining Spear pic should have had the caption "These have not aged well!". It's gotto be driving someone at GWHQ nuts that they have to keep the old Eldar Jetbike in production just because of these gimps. Why they didn't update the Spears at the same time they did the regular bikes I will never understand...
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: Do they put datasheets in the boxes for new units? I want Szeras model but I'm not buying a book for one datasheet.
They should have his rules in there. They usually come within the instructions, before the paint guide. I don't see Szeras being a blister.
Multibuild kits now tend to be a bit simplified and only have whatever the box cover is. My Serberys Raiders had rules for only the Raiders, telling you to refer to the codex(ha!) for the Sulphurhounds and "full rules" for the Raiders.
Did you know that the new general rules that apply to everyone also apply to Craftworld forces??? WOW!
And I can't be the only one who thought the Shining Spear pic should have had the caption "These have not aged well!". It's gotto be driving someone at GWHQ nuts that they have to keep the old Eldar Jetbike in production just because of these gimps. Why they didn't update the Spears at the same time they did the regular bikes I will never understand...
Golly gee wilikers you mean the Craftworlds will have to follow the rules for once and won't just ignore them to break the game again?
bullyboy wrote: Definitely a weak book overall, even more so when you realize there is plenty of room for Harlequin or Deathwatch content there. What a really strange decision.
They did confirm that Deathwatch will be one of the first dexes, along with Necrons. That may be why.
That could also indicate that Harlies may be in the same group?
Craftworld having to actually follow core rules for once is actually REAL news hah hah. But that would invalidate their whole codex then, wouldn't it ?
Other "real" news IMHO: No blast for night spinners ? (i thought they would get it)
Sasori wrote: Whelp, this is kind of sad. Really expected something for Necrons. Zero reason for me to pick this up now.
I'm hoping that means that the Necron codex won't be on as long as timeline as Deathguard was in 8th.
Stu said as much in the stream. Said it didn't make sense to put new rules in the PA book and then turn around and release the new codex shortly afterwards.
Can someone explain Engage on all fronts to me in non-legalese?
Does one unit have to be in 3 table quarters to qualify?
If you have 3 units in three table quarters, does that count too, or do the three units have to each be spread across 3 table quarters?
Leggy wrote: Can someone explain Engage on all fronts to me in non-legalese?
Does one unit have to be in 3 table quarters to qualify?
If you have 3 units in three table quarters, does that count too, or do the three units have to each be spread across 3 table quarters?
3 different units each in a different table quarter.
addnid wrote: Other "real" news IMHO: No blast for night spinners ? (i thought they would get it)
Where are you getting that?
"The updates to Blast weapons really help even out the damage potential of this current all-star unit, making its doomweaver deadlier still."
Doomweaver thing we saw. Isn't it the NS weapon ? OK perhaps I took them not specifying it will be getting the blast rule too far... Sorry. This weapon will be crazy good if it gets it, and i am afraid. And I shall know fear
So sad that they have to push the shining spears....not even a relevant kit. How about these new Banshees? nah, make them crap, shining spears are where it's at!
As to the Doomweaver, it clearly said it benefits from Blast.
bullyboy wrote: So sad that they have to push the shining spears....not even a relevant kit. How about these new Banshees? nah, make them crap, shining spears are where it's at!
As to the Doomweaver, it clearly said it benefits from Blast.
Ah ok. I Hope the NS will get a nice big fat point increase then
bullyboy wrote: So sad that they have to push the shining spears....not even a relevant kit. How about these new Banshees? nah, make them crap, shining spears are where it's at!
As to the Doomweaver, it clearly said it benefits from Blast.
Ah ok. I Hope the NS will get a nice big fat point increase then
I do think the points may be prohibitive to fielding 3 of them, but it still looks like an absolute winner right now.
bullyboy wrote: So sad that they have to push the shining spears....not even a relevant kit. How about these new Banshees? nah, make them crap, shining spears are where it's at!
As to the Doomweaver, it clearly said it benefits from Blast.
but don't you know that GW is a cynical business that always pushes the new kits?
That's why these 3rd ed era bike sculpts have been meta since the start of 8th and the brand new plastic howling banshees are hot garbage
No rules for Sisters or Necrons beyond the characters.
Oh well money saved for now.
I cant believe that a book with a necron model on the cover only has one necron datasheet in it.
They said it’s because the Necron codex is right around the corner, so putting rules in for them would become instantly redundant. But the fluff seems to be heavily focused around them and their current shenanigans.
No rules for Sisters or Necrons beyond the characters.
Oh well money saved for now.
I cant believe that a book with a necron model on the cover only has one necron datasheet in it.
They said it’s because the Necron codex is right around the corner, so putting rules in for them would become instantly redundant. But the fluff seems to be heavily focused around them and their current shenanigans.
I'm more concerned whether these Theatres of war will carry over to 9th. I guess I can implement them fairly easily (I use the Maiden World one on my Maiden World table)
No rules for Sisters or Necrons beyond the characters.
Oh well money saved for now.
I cant believe that a book with a necron model on the cover only has one necron datasheet in it.
They said it’s because the Necron codex is right around the corner, so putting rules in for them would become instantly redundant. But the fluff seems to be heavily focused around them and their current shenanigans.
I'm more concerned whether these Theatres of war will carry over to 9th. I guess I can implement them fairly easily (I use the Maiden World one on my Maiden World table)
I would imagine that this close to 9th that they're part of the rules from the Psychic Awakening series which will be carried forward.
I dunno why people think Nightspinners getting blast is a big buff. With the 2d6 profile, it only benefits against 11+ units (it gets what, something like 0.1 extra shots on average against 6-10?), and 9th seems focused on eliminating those from the game entirely.
A buff against a target that no longer exists in the game and that you probably wouldn't want to shoot anyway doesn't seem like a significant buff. If you can't shoot after falling back even with fly in the new edition, it would actually be a nerf.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno why people think Nightspinners getting blast is a big buff. With the 2d6 profile, it only benefits against 11+ units (it gets what, something like 0.1 extra shots on average against 6-10?), and 9th seems focused on eliminating those from the game entirely.
A buff against a target that no longer exists in the game and that you probably wouldn't want to shoot anyway doesn't seem like a significant buff.
yeah we have still yet to see any reason to actually field a unit large enough to make Blasts function. Where is the carrot rule to this new stick?
No rules for Sisters or Necrons beyond the characters.
Oh well money saved for now.
I cant believe that a book with a necron model on the cover only has one necron datasheet in it.
They said it’s because the Necron codex is right around the corner, so putting rules in for them would become instantly redundant. But the fluff seems to be heavily focused around them and their current shenanigans.
Sure, but it also means not getting our table of custom dynasty rules. Lose/Lose.
bullyboy wrote: So sad that they have to push the shining spears....not even a relevant kit. How about these new Banshees? nah, make them crap, shining spears are where it's at!
.
I think that's just a matter of sales. They figure people who want banshees already bought the phoenix whatever box. Now they want to push sales of spears, avengers and night spinners.
That's all these articles are, have someone 'impartial' push three units from each range by claiming they're 'awesome' in the new edition.
Sure, but it also means not getting our table of custom dynasty rules. Lose/Lose.?
No reason that can't come in the soon-to-be released codex.
Appreciate the lack of purchasing redundancy.
Everybody else is going to be juggling reprints, trivial differences and things left out of various publications... in some cases they'll be dealing with it for years.
Its win/win.
Yeah, Necrons will have their new codex by the end of August. Just be happy you don't have to shell out $40 for a book that's immediately going to be obsolete.
No rules for Sisters or Necrons beyond the characters.
Oh well money saved for now.
I cant believe that a book with a necron model on the cover only has one necron datasheet in it.
They said it’s because the Necron codex is right around the corner, so putting rules in for them would become instantly redundant. But the fluff seems to be heavily focused around them and their current shenanigans.
Sure, but it also means not getting our table of custom dynasty rules. Lose/Lose.
Also, no custom orders for sisters either???
Custodes didn't get custom Shield-Hosts so there's precedent. Hopefully we all see them in our new Codices.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, Necrons will have their new codex by the end of August. Just be happy you don't have to shell out $40 for a book that's immediately going to be obsolete.
We’d learn the two custom dynasty pages online without any need to purchase the book, is the real point. That kind of information becomes freely available in short order.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno why people think Nightspinners getting blast is a big buff. With the 2d6 profile, it only benefits against 11+ units (it gets what, something like 0.1 extra shots on average against 6-10?), and 9th seems focused on eliminating those from the game entirely.
A buff against a target that no longer exists in the game and that you probably wouldn't want to shoot anyway doesn't seem like a significant buff. If you can't shoot after falling back even with fly in the new edition, it would actually be a nerf.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno why people think Nightspinners getting blast is a big buff. With the 2d6 profile, it only benefits against 11+ units (it gets what, something like 0.1 extra shots on average against 6-10?), and 9th seems focused on eliminating those from the game entirely.
A buff against a target that no longer exists in the game and that you probably wouldn't want to shoot anyway doesn't seem like a significant buff. If you can't shoot after falling back even with fly in the new edition, it would actually be a nerf.
One extra shot vs 6-10.
Nope, not for a 2d6 weapon, unless they changed the wording of the rule after the initial posting. The rule they posted is 3 shots minimum per weapon, not per dice. So on 2d6 you go from a minimum of 2 to a minimum of 3, but that's the only change. It results in a bonus of essentially nothing.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno why people think Nightspinners getting blast is a big buff. With the 2d6 profile, it only benefits against 11+ units (it gets what, something like 0.1 extra shots on average against 6-10?), and 9th seems focused on eliminating those from the game entirely.
A buff against a target that no longer exists in the game and that you probably wouldn't want to shoot anyway doesn't seem like a significant buff. If you can't shoot after falling back even with fly in the new edition, it would actually be a nerf.
One extra shot vs 6-10.
Nope, not for a 2d6 weapon, unless they changed the wording of the rule after the initial posting. The rule they posted is 3 shots minimum per weapon, not per dice. So on 2d6 you go from a minimum of 2 to a minimum of 3, but that's the only change. It results in a bonus of essentially nothing.
bullyboy wrote: Definitely a weak book overall, even more so when you realize there is plenty of room for Harlequin or Deathwatch content there. What a really strange decision.
They did confirm that Deathwatch will be one of the first dexes, along with Necrons. That may be why.
That could also indicate that Harlies may be in the same group?
Then again with new codexes not getting all PA it will leave factions in 2 unequal situations. Either some armies have more(those who have PA+new codex vs those with just new codex(necron, sister, harlies) or some armies(those 3) get cheaper because they gotPA's worth of stuff in codex while others won'tget to new codex their PA stuff so have to get PA book for full rules anyway...)
They said it’s because the Necron codex is right around the corner, so putting rules in for them would become instantly redundant. But the fluff seems to be heavily focused around them and their current shenanigans.
Except new codexes in future won't make PA book redundant. GW alreayd said all won't go to new codex so you will still need both books if you want full rules.
bullyboy wrote: Definitely a weak book overall, even more so when you realize there is plenty of room for Harlequin or Deathwatch content there. What a really strange decision.
They did confirm that Deathwatch will be one of the first dexes, along with Necrons. That may be why.
That could also indicate that Harlies may be in the same group?
Then again with new codexes not getting all PA it will leave factions in 2 unequal situations. Either some armies have more(those who have PA+new codex vs those with just new codex(necron, sister, harlies) or some armies(those 3) get cheaper because they gotPA's worth of stuff in codex while others won'tget to new codex their PA stuff so have to get PA book for full rules anyway...)
Yes. I feel like GW isn't really handling this "living edition" stuff too well. They haven't completely figured out how to blend it within their "sell more books" business model.
bullyboy wrote: So sad that they have to push the shining spears....not even a relevant kit. How about these new Banshees? nah, make them crap, shining spears are where it's at!
As to the Doomweaver, it clearly said it benefits from Blast.
Ah ok. I Hope the NS will get a nice big fat point increase then
The funny thing is, Blast is a complete trap. Especially if it costs more. In my mind it should cost less than a normal weapon. Why? Because you can't shoot to melee.
How many lists in top meta will even use units with 11+ models per unit? Think current meta. So, if once per 6 games you get a few extra hits in, but pay extra points to get those hits, but 6 out of 6 games can't shoot into melee, I would skip blast weapons altogether.
A buff against a target that no longer exists in the game and that you probably wouldn't want to shoot anyway doesn't seem like a significant buff. If you can't shoot after falling back even with fly in the new edition, it would actually be a nerf.
Yukishiro gets it. If NS points went up, and got blast, it just received a gigantic nerf.
bullyboy wrote: Definitely a weak book overall, even more so when you realize there is plenty of room for Harlequin or Deathwatch content there. What a really strange decision.
They did confirm that Deathwatch will be one of the first dexes, along with Necrons. That may be why.
That could also indicate that Harlies may be in the same group?
Then again with new codexes not getting all PA it will leave factions in 2 unequal situations. Either some armies have more(those who have PA+new codex vs those with just new codex(necron, sister, harlies) or some armies(those 3) get cheaper because they gotPA's worth of stuff in codex while others won'tget to new codex their PA stuff so have to get PA book for full rules anyway...)
Yes. I feel like GW isn't really handling this "living edition" stuff too well. They haven't completely figured out how to blend it within their "sell more books" business model.
I think we saw that when they did Vigilus, at the time they didn't even understand how they wanted to expand the game.
Obviously they've improved since then, and the PA books are a good chunk better, but I feel they dropped the ball on what it could have been.
I feel like PA should have been a way to release new units, or at least updated ones, to the entire range for every faction. Heck, if given an opportunity I'd put all the new Necrons stuff into PA, then use those books as a sort of open beta on finalizing any rules that go into the codexes proper.
We already know they're doing something like that with the stratagems, using it as a way to release new kits and then open beta for any jank would have worked well for a 8.5 update going into 9th.
But who knows, maybe that idea was suggested and then shot down at some point.
bullyboy wrote: So sad that they have to push the shining spears....not even a relevant kit. How about these new Banshees? nah, make them crap, shining spears are where it's at!
As to the Doomweaver, it clearly said it benefits from Blast.
Ah ok. I Hope the NS will get a nice big fat point increase then
The funny thing is, Blast is a complete trap. Especially if it costs more. In my mind it should cost less than a normal weapon. Why? Because you can't shoot to melee.
How many lists in top meta will even use units with 11+ models per unit? Think current meta. So, if once per 6 games you get a few extra hits in, but pay extra points to get those hits, but 6 out of 6 games can't shoot into melee, I would skip blast weapons altogether.
I disagree, blast weapons may not universally see a points bump, but several of them could do with one now, and making them better against certain units is always a good reason to reevaluate points costs.
Then again I've been saying for a while now that there should be no free wargear and it should all cost points to allow the game to see more granularity than just model cost provides. I know some will argue that the "free" weapons are actually baked into the base model, but I don't buy that we see a real reflection of that when GW is known for dropping points costs on the base model all the time.
I'd rather they split the points costs for all wargear out and make us pay for everything, even the grenades, so we can get some more granularity back into the system and better balance things.
Then again, I'm the same person who also has been saying that I feel they need to spend 9th mainly focused on raising points on anything that is seen too often, and not just slashing points on stuff that is never taken.
With necrons in the starter box of 9th, they should have been in the first PA book, simple as that. Especially if they have planned this since late 2018.
Wasn't there some other time they didn't bother with point adjustments in a FAQ because the codex was coming soon anyway? Chipping away another 3-4 months of crappy game play.
Well, for necrons who arguably have sucked this edition, not only being last out with PA, but also losing out on the PA they do get - because they were last out... Well...
They should put the flood of book releases on hold for 12 months and drop everything at once. That'd be refreshing.
I feel like a preview roadmap would be very helpful for GW. Give us a monthly calendar showing what the topic will be for each day of the month, leading up to 9th's release. Video games do this a lot to show what's being developed. It would make people a lot less apprehensive about filler previews like these faction focuses (and generate more hype) if you knew that a juicy topic was around the corner.
Only problem is that that strategy would require GW to know what they're going to preview a month in advance... and I have a feeling they're figuring that out on a day by day basis.
punisher357 wrote: Well, I'll definitely be skipping out on Pariah. One datasheet for necrons for around $40? Hard pass.
What a let down. GW just gave up on the last PA book.
So you'd rather of had a book with a lot of rules which would have been obsolete in a month
If it's going to be obsolete in a month then maybe they shouldn't sell the book to begin with (or sell it at a price that befits what is essentially some fluff that will be copy-pasted into 40k wiki within a year)? How about offering a product that isn't crap?
bullyboy wrote: Definitely a weak book overall, even more so when you realize there is plenty of room for Harlequin or Deathwatch content there. What a really strange decision.
They did confirm that Deathwatch will be one of the first dexes, along with Necrons. That may be why.
That could also indicate that Harlies may be in the same group?
Then again with new codexes not getting all PA it will leave factions in 2 unequal situations. Either some armies have more(those who have PA+new codex vs those with just new codex(necron, sister, harlies) or some armies(those 3) get cheaper because they gotPA's worth of stuff in codex while others won'tget to new codex their PA stuff so have to get PA book for full rules anyway...)
Yes. I feel like GW isn't really handling this "living edition" stuff too well. They haven't completely figured out how to blend it within their "sell more books" business model.
They aren't doing a 'living edition.' I know some really want to believe that's happening, but it isn't. They're still 100% on selling books- 6 months ago they were selling updated points values for the entire range, despite planning for 9th next month (or maybe originally this month). That's also why nearly half of the PA books included reprints of the same space marine datasheets- they're very focused on selling tiny updates, not doing living updates. That was the entire point of PA.
BlaxicanX wrote: I feel like a preview roadmap would be very helpful for GW. Give us a monthly calendar showing what the topic will be for each day of the month, leading up to 9th's release. Video games do this a lot to show what's being developed. It would make people a lot less apprehensive about filler previews like these faction focuses (and generate more hype) if you knew that a juicy topic was around the corner.
Only problem is that that strategy would require GW to know what they're going to preview a month in advance... and I have a feeling they're figuring that out on a day by day basis.
They know what they're doing. They're advertising upcoming products as they happen. You may not like their preview style (and it leaves a lot to be desired), but they aren't making it up day by day.
They don't show off what's farther out on purpose- its been a matter of policy that they want people focused and spending money on the current release, not saving for the release after the next one.
punisher357 wrote: Well, I'll definitely be skipping out on Pariah. One datasheet for necrons for around $40? Hard pass.
What a let down. GW just gave up on the last PA book.
So you'd rather of had a book with a lot of rules which would have been obsolete in a month
If it's going to be obsolete in a month then maybe they shouldn't sell the book to begin with (or sell it at a price that befits what is essentially some fluff that will be copy-pasted into 40k wiki within a year)? How about offering a product that isn't crap?
The book does have more than just the Necron rules (Index: Inquisition, Theatres of War, new missions and datasheets for Ephraei Stern and Kyganil of the Bloody Tears). Only the Necron rules would have been obsolete when the new codex drops.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno why people think Nightspinners getting blast is a big buff. With the 2d6 profile, it only benefits against 11+ units (it gets what, something like 0.1 extra shots on average against 6-10?), and 9th seems focused on eliminating those from the game entirely.
A buff against a target that no longer exists in the game and that you probably wouldn't want to shoot anyway doesn't seem like a significant buff. If you can't shoot after falling back even with fly in the new edition, it would actually be a nerf.
Less ease to draw LOS means all indirect fire is getting a buff. And while I really hope fly and fallback but still shoot Goes Away with 9th, I don’t think anything has been hinted to that happening, has it ?
punisher357 wrote: Well, I'll definitely be skipping out on Pariah. One datasheet for necrons for around $40? Hard pass.
What a let down. GW just gave up on the last PA book.
So you'd rather of had a book with a lot of rules which would have been obsolete in a month
What obsolete? Previous PA books won't become obsolete when respective new codex comes out. Question is: Do you want stratagems, warlord traits etc without having to pay anything(well apart from cash) to have them in your toolbox?
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's the last pa book, so now can they please, TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Please?
I am waiting for the main 40k team to kinda go oh yeah FW we need the new Rules for your stuff for 9th edition.
FW "WTF guys you said you were doing all the 40k rules and even cried to managment to make it happen. GTFO.
GW Ehh better do something quick heres the same unplayable 8th edition index rules with some keywords added and a 40% points increase.
Players "WTF this is unplayable trash?"
Gw "Wait for CA it fixes it."
CAFW points increases.
Stu Black said early on that FW books would be some of the earliest releases. And with how long the turn around on books is, they likely started this back when they took the books over from FW last year.
punisher357 wrote: Well, I'll definitely be skipping out on Pariah. One datasheet for necrons for around $40? Hard pass.
What a let down. GW just gave up on the last PA book.
So you'd rather of had a book with a lot of rules which would have been obsolete in a month
What obsolete? Previous PA books won't become obsolete when respective new codex comes out. Question is: Do you want stratagems, warlord traits etc without having to pay anything(well apart from cash) to have them in your toolbox?
Didn't they explicitly say the 9th edition books would take "The best of the PA books", thus implying the PA books would be replaced by the new codexes?
Not exactly. They said the greatest hits from PA would be included in new versions of the codexes, but that the PA books would otherwise remain valid.
It's like how a number of stratagems and relics from Vigilus Defiant made it into the new Codex Space Marines. Some were even updated in the processs, so they then issued errata to VD to bring it into compliance with the codex.
Yeah, all they got was some alternate head options.
Or was it one alternate head?
An alternate head without rules, as you cannot legally play the Banshees without the mask.
Yes you can. They don't suddenly become 'not banshees'- they still have the right models with the right weapons.
Even if you're trying to reference WYSIWG, the cheek pieces are the speakers for the wail.
The Ynnari Banshees were literally described as "without a mask on". So they don't have a mask on. The air ducts are not the Banshee mask. Not by the Warhammer Community text. Not by the Jes Goodwyn concept sketches.
Ynnari Banshees don't have Banshee Masks.
Spoiler:
Not to mention that Jain Zar (who turned Ynnari in the book, but is still illegal to play as Ynnari in the game btw), does NOT have the air ducts, though she certainly DOES have the Banshee mask with all the rules that come with it.
Spoiler:
Either way, Ynnari are explicilty not allowed to even use any of the new Banshee (or any Aspect) rules published in Phoenix Rising.
GW literally sold Ynnari-players a 40 Euro book where the verbatum only new rule they got was "you're not allowed to use any of the new rules published in this book ... thanks for the cash".
alextroy wrote: Not exactly. They said the greatest hits from PA would be included in new versions of the codexes, but that the PA books would otherwise remain valid.
It's like how a number of stratagems and relics from Vigilus Defiant made it into the new Codex Space Marines. Some were even updated in the processs, so they then issued errata to VD to bring it into compliance with the codex.
At some point I assume they'll phase them out. We don't need a dozen books with obscure strats floating around the game.
punisher357 wrote: Well, I'll definitely be skipping out on Pariah. One datasheet for necrons for around $40? Hard pass.
What a let down. GW just gave up on the last PA book.
So you'd rather of had a book with a lot of rules which would have been obsolete in a month
What obsolete? Previous PA books won't become obsolete when respective new codex comes out. Question is: Do you want stratagems, warlord traits etc without having to pay anything(well apart from cash) to have them in your toolbox?
If they were to include rules for Codex Necrons (which would be for the current 8th edition codex), those rules would be obsolete when the new codex drops. Hence why Stu Black stated on the Twitch feed today that Pariah is light on Necron rules (a datasheet for Illuminor Szeras and rules for Theatre of War: Necron Tomb World).
Pariah is weak
Let’s say we are cool with szera model releasing w this book and a datasheet since it’s all going to codex next month.
At bare minimum they should have had death watch included w The inquisition in this book. Redo the datasheets for killteam Cassius for 9th. Throw in The white dwarf junk like warlord trait, relic, and strats And this book would have been decent.
Deathwatch could have used some sprucing up.
gungo wrote: At bare minimum they should have had death watch included w The inquisition in this book. Redo the datasheets for killteam Cassius for 9th. Throw in The white dwarf junk like warlord trait, relic, and strats And this book would have been decent.
Deathwatch could have used some sprucing up.
I believe it was also mentioned on today's Twitch feed that Deathwatch are due to be one of the first codices after 9th edition drops, placing them in the same boat as Necrons.
gungo wrote: At bare minimum they should have had death watch included w The inquisition in this book. Redo the datasheets for killteam Cassius for 9th. Throw in The white dwarf junk like warlord trait, relic, and strats And this book would have been decent.
Deathwatch could have used some sprucing up.
I believe it was also mentioned on today's Twitch feed that Deathwatch are due to be one of the first codices after 9th edition drops, placing them in the same boat as Necrons.
Regardless the intern spent 20 mins making that white dwarf article they could have fit it in the book. Death watch and inquisition vs Necrons actually makes sense thematically. I also doubt 9th edition deathwatch codex will update killteam Cassius I expect primarsus stuff to dominate that release.
gungo wrote: At bare minimum they should have had death watch included w The inquisition in this book. Redo the datasheets for killteam Cassius for 9th. Throw in The white dwarf junk like warlord trait, relic, and strats And this book would have been decent.
Deathwatch could have used some sprucing up.
I believe it was also mentioned on today's Twitch feed that Deathwatch are due to be one of the first codices after 9th edition drops, placing them in the same boat as Necrons.
Regardless the intern spent 20 mins making that white dwarf article they could have fit it in the book. Death watch and inquisition vs Necrons actually makes sense thematically. I also doubt 9th edition deathwatch codex will update killteam Cassius I expect primarsus stuff to dominate that release.
Unless they wanted to get them out and get some feedback from the community, which they probably didn't get thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic
We know some stuff from PA will carry over to the forthcoming Codex range, yes?
So we just need to await our new Codex and plethora of new models.
Yes but not all.
Thus the factions that didn't get PA rules will be behind the power curve ones factions with PA will get new codex at which point they have new codex AND rules from PA.
We know some stuff from PA will carry over to the forthcoming Codex range, yes?
So we just need to await our new Codex and plethora of new models.
Yes but not all.
Thus the factions that didn't get PA rules will be behind the power curve ones factions with PA will get new codex at which point they have new codex AND rules from PA.
That's making a lot of assumptions about GW consistency with power curves (which historically is wildly inconsistent), and they stated already that updated codexes will simply copy a chunk of the stuff published in PA books. The 'extras' gained from having both is going to be very small, potentially incompatible and likely to be a detriment just as often as it turns out to be a benefit.
And that assumes that most factions actually got a notable power curve bump from PA. But I'm sure lots of folks will want to argue about that.
This is not so much preparation as advice. Whether you’re planning to expand upon or create a whole new army, KEEP YOUR BOOKS SAFE! There will, of course, be updated editions of codexes for each faction in the future that further develop their rules, including awesome, narrative-driven content for your Crusade campaigns in the new edition and more.
However, until then, your current codexes will remain your go-to companions for each faction. It’s not just codexes, either – campaign books such as those from War Zone: Vigilus, the Psychic Awakening series and even the various index articles featured in White Dwarf will still be usable in the new edition.
So it's clear to me that once your new codex drops, the old codex and the other sources (campaign books and White Dwarf articles) are rendered obsolete for that army.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's the last pa book, so now can they please, TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Please?
I am waiting for the main 40k team to kinda go oh yeah FW we need the new Rules for your stuff for 9th edition.
FW "WTF guys you said you were doing all the 40k rules and even cried to managment to make it happen. GTFO.
GW Ehh better do something quick heres the same unplayable 8th edition index rules with some keywords added and a 40% points increase.
Players "WTF this is unplayable trash?"
Gw "Wait for CA it fixes it."
CAFW points increases.
Stu Black said early on that FW books would be some of the earliest releases. And with how long the turn around on books is, they likely started this back when they took the books over from FW last year.
The issue is when is one of earliest releases?
They have already admitted that no faction even necrons who have how many new models wont have a codex at launch and latest roumers for them getting it is late August, Marines of one form or another are bound to get a new codex as one of the launch factions, unless they really are going out their and going Primaris DW vrs Crons for the normal starter set(doubt it). Stu has already said DW are getting a codex early hence the WD touch up.
Thats 3 codex's, plus a CA for 5 months of the year left.
At this point I noy hopefully we will see FW updated this year which is getting really old.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's the last pa book, so now can they please, TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT THE NEW FORGE WORLD BOOKS?
Please?
I am waiting for the main 40k team to kinda go oh yeah FW we need the new Rules for your stuff for 9th edition.
FW "WTF guys you said you were doing all the 40k rules and even cried to managment to make it happen. GTFO.
GW Ehh better do something quick heres the same unplayable 8th edition index rules with some keywords added and a 40% points increase.
Players "WTF this is unplayable trash?"
Gw "Wait for CA it fixes it."
CAFW points increases.
Stu Black said early on that FW books would be some of the earliest releases. And with how long the turn around on books is, they likely started this back when they took the books over from FW last year.
He was making a joke while pointing out the treatment fw has received from the gw rules team in 8th: repeated points increases in ca with no drops, except for the astreus. Because "primaris". Personally, for chaos sake, and R&H in particular, I hope the rules team were forced to read IA 13 repeatedly, and then hit in the head with the book to make sure it sinks in.
On the subject of what will carry over from pa to the new codexes: I hope they keep all the Night Lords stratagems from Faith and Fury. I think whoever wrote those may be an actual Nostroman.
On a somewhat unrelated topic, does anyone else find it downright bizarre that they didn't tell us how much each detachment costs in CP, as well as whether there is any additional penalty for souping?
It seems like strange business decision, because without that info, it makes figuring out the vague contours of what your army is going to look like impossible. Which means a lot of people like me who are sitting on the sidelines and not spending any money until we know. Whereas if we had had that information, they might have tempted us to go out and buy some models during the transition period, even without knowing precise point values.
For example, I was all set to buy a coven detachment to add to my eldar list until 9th came out and we started hearing about soup penalties. That purchase has now been put on hold indefinitely, because I'm not about to drop a couple hundred on something that I may not be able to use at all in 9th if the soup penalty is too large. But I'm also not going to buy anything else, because I'm still hoping it will be doable. Whereas if you let me know one way or the other, I might have been tempted into buying some stuff and painting it up to have ready for 9th.
yukishiro1 wrote: On a somewhat unrelated topic, does anyone else find it downright bizarre that they didn't tell us how much each detachment costs in CP, as well as whether there is any additional penalty for souping?
They've given us virtually no specific details on anything, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.
Right, but it seems like it would be in their own financial interest to give out this info, because it's so basic. Who is going to buy models right now when they don't even know if they're going to be able to use them in a 9th list in any realistic way? I guess monofaction players with limited collections might expand them in the meantime, but that's about it.
yukishiro1 wrote: Right, but it seems like it would be in their own financial interest to give out this info, because it's so basic. Who is going to buy models right now when they don't even know if they're going to be able to use them in a 9th list in any realistic way? I guess monofaction players with limited collections might expand them in the meantime, but that's about it.
Because they can save it as a teaser, but then not give us all the info anyways.
And thereby keep people not spending money. I thought the whole point of marketing was to get people to open their wallets, not to keep them closed. Are there really people reacting to the 9th drip reveal by going out and spending money because they're so excited? I have definitely been guilty in the past of overestimating peoples' rationality, so maybe I'm wrong here and not giving people clear info really is the way to get them to open their wallets...a depressing thought.
Yukishiro has a good point. I'm certainly not buying anything new until I know if I can actually use it, and have stuff I'm holding off assembling because I don't know what wargear options to use. If I knew that they are fixing the points for the hellforged super heavys I'd like to get a falchion. But if it's staying over 1000 points? Nope, no sale.
Apparently the world is full of people less wise then dakkanauts, since selling models doesn't appear to be a problem for GW right now. Remember, this is the company that see sales going so well they plan on repaying furlough funds to the government despite having no obligation to do so.
edit: Reference to angry people removed since the comment was removed.
alextroy wrote: Apparently the world is full of people less wise then dakkanauts, since selling models doesn't appear to be a problem for GW right now. Remember, this is the company that see sales going so well they plan on repaying furlough funds to the government despite having no obligation to do so.
Oh, definitely. They obviously know a lot more about marketing than I do. All I can give is my personal view, which is that I would have made several hundred $ worth of purchases but held off on doing so because of the announcement of 9th, but that I would go ahead and make those purchases if they gave me enough info about how detachments work to know whether I will be able to realistically use those models or not. I may well be an outlier.
yukishiro1 wrote: And thereby keep people not spending money. I thought the whole point of marketing was to get people to open their wallets, not to keep them closed. Are there really people reacting to the 9th drip reveal by going out and spending money because they're so excited? I have definitely been guilty in the past of overestimating peoples' rationality, so maybe I'm wrong here and not giving people clear info really is the way to get them to open their wallets...a depressing thought.
The whole point of marketing is to generate interest in the product (even if that interest is initially negative because it still means more people actively paying attention to the product). I wouldn't even be shocked if GW is playing it in such a way that they're setting expectations low by revealing only the most controversial rules to generate the most buzz, and then when the full thing drops most people end up feeling better about it because it's better than they thought it'd be.
yukishiro1 wrote: And thereby keep people not spending money. I thought the whole point of marketing was to get people to open their wallets, not to keep them closed. Are there really people reacting to the 9th drip reveal by going out and spending money because they're so excited? I have definitely been guilty in the past of overestimating peoples' rationality, so maybe I'm wrong here and not giving people clear info really is the way to get them to open their wallets...a depressing thought.
The whole point of marketing is to generate interest in the product (even if that interest is initially negative because it still means more people actively paying attention to the product). I wouldn't even be shocked if GW is playing it in such a way that they're setting expectations low by revealing only the most controversial rules to generate the most buzz, and then when the full thing drops most people end up feeling better about it because it's better than they thought it'd be.
alextroy wrote: Apparently the world is full of people less wise then dakkanauts, since selling models doesn't appear to be a problem for GW right now. Remember, this is the company that see sales going so well they plan on repaying furlough funds to the government despite having no obligation to do so.
Actually they aren't allowed to give themselves bonuses and dividends to shareholders if they don't.
Personally, I’m still buying models without knowing all the changes. I don’t think just knowing what the CP costs of the various detachments would influence many people’s buying habits. If you’re waiting on that knowledge, aren’t you likely waiting on points cost changing before you buy as well?
yukishiro1 wrote: And thereby keep people not spending money. I thought the whole point of marketing was to get people to open their wallets, not to keep them closed. Are there really people reacting to the 9th drip reveal by going out and spending money because they're so excited? I have definitely been guilty in the past of overestimating peoples' rationality, so maybe I'm wrong here and not giving people clear info really is the way to get them to open their wallets...a depressing thought.
The whole point of marketing is to generate interest in the product (even if that interest is initially negative because it still means more people actively paying attention to the product). I wouldn't even be shocked if GW is playing it in such a way that they're setting expectations low by revealing only the most controversial rules to generate the most buzz, and then when the full thing drops most people end up feeling better about it because it's better than they thought it'd be.
The Sonic Approach then?
I admit it's me being cynical, but this whole "keep the community second-guessing about everything" approach and not going into greater detail about rules that have definitely sparked a lot of debate (meanwhile they clarified the MINIMUM TABLE SIZE like it was really a big deal) makes me wonder if they're leading with the most controversial stuff first, to ease the transition in so we don't feel so culture shocked about how they "ruined 40k" this time.
alextroy wrote: Apparently the world is full of people less wise then dakkanauts, since selling models doesn't appear to be a problem for GW right now. Remember, this is the company that see sales going so well they plan on repaying furlough funds to the government despite having no obligation to do so.
Actually they aren't allowed to give themselves bonuses and dividends to shareholders if they don't.
Last time Roundtree issued bonuses he did so to the entire company, so at least the bonuses will go to people on ever level, not just the suits at the top.
Mariongodspeed wrote: Personally, I’m still buying models without knowing all the changes. I don’t think just knowing what the CP costs of the various detachments would influence many people’s buying habits. If you’re waiting on that knowledge, aren’t you likely waiting on points cost changing before you buy as well?
Personally, the points matter a lot less. Like I feel pretty safe that the units I want to buy aren't going to change dramatically in points. If they do go up more than I expect, I can always shift something else in the army, or reduce squad size, or whatever. But if it costs me say 5CP to add a coven detachment to my army that is already dual harle/CWE (mono quins doesn't work because it isn't a complete army, never has), that just isn't going to work, because that'd be spending 10CP before the game just on detachments. So if that's how much it's going to cost, I can't take any coven models at all, and the entire purchase would be wasted.
On the other hand, if patrols are say only 1 or 2CP and there's no soup penalty, I can easily make a tri-detachment list work, and I'd go ahead and buy the coven detachment and paint it up now to have it ready.
Battalions cost 3. I imagine Brigades will be 5 and Patrols 1.
The others I'm less sure about. Maybe 3 since they operate like battalions that trade troops out for other slots?
Mariongodspeed wrote: Personally, I’m still buying models without knowing all the changes. I don’t think just knowing what the CP costs of the various detachments would influence many people’s buying habits. If you’re waiting on that knowledge, aren’t you likely waiting on points cost changing before you buy as well?
Personally, the points matter a lot less. Like I feel pretty safe that the units I want to buy aren't going to change dramatically in points. If they do go up more than I expect, I can always shift something else in the army, or reduce squad size, or whatever. But if it costs me say 5CP to add a coven detachment to my army that is already dual harle/CWE (mono quins doesn't work because it isn't a complete army, never has), that just isn't going to work, because that'd be spending 10CP before the game just on detachments. So if that's how much it's going to cost, I can't take any coven models at all, and the entire purchase would be wasted.
Dark Eldar really need a rework, as they have become 3 mini-factions included in one book.
ClockworkZion wrote: Battalions cost 3. I imagine Brigades will be 5 and Patrols 1.
The others I'm less sure about. Maybe 3 since they operate like battalions that trade troops out for other slots?
Why on earth would Brigades be 5 and Patrols be 1? Those numbers should be reversed.
ClockworkZion wrote: Battalions cost 3. I imagine Brigades will be 5 and Patrols 1.
The others I'm less sure about. Maybe 3 since they operate like battalions that trade troops out for other slots?
Why on earth would Brigades be 5 and Patrols be 1? Those numbers should be reversed.
Because if you're running a Patrol you're not bringing as many units in that detachment so it would impact the main force (the one with your warlord) less.
Or so I assume GW's thought process to be on this.
I am in the boat of patrols being the lowest cost too. I understand the argument people are making to the contrary, but it doesn't convince me. It seems to rely on the suspect idea that GW wants to penalize you for taking smaller sub-detachments, and I just don't think that's actually true. They moved away from the model of detachments giving you CP, but it doesn't follow from that that they want an inverse relationship between CP cost and size that penalizes you MORE for taking a small allied detachment than a large one.
I expect patrols will be 1 or 2CP, and the same for the specialized detachments. And I also suspect there is no "soup penalty" besides the detachment cost itself. But I'm not willing gamble a bunch of money on being right on both of those things.
That would lead to odd results like it being more advantageous to take your warlord in your patrol than your brigade detachment.
I think the whole point of what GW is doing is the idea that small detachments of allies will be viable, but that they want to reward you for having one main force, which your warlord comes from.
We'll see I guess, but I would be super surprised if a patrol costs more than a bat and a brigade less than a bat.
yukishiro1 wrote: Right, but it seems like it would be in their own financial interest to give out this info, because it's so basic. Who is going to buy models right now when they don't even know if they're going to be able to use them in a 9th list in any realistic way? I guess monofaction players with limited collections might expand them in the meantime, but that's about it.
Raises hand.
I'm 100% certain that I'm going to be able to use the new AdMech stuff. So as soon as my order comes in at my local shop....
yukishiro1 wrote: Right, but it seems like it would be in their own financial interest to give out this info, because it's so basic. Who is going to buy models right now when they don't even know if they're going to be able to use them in a 9th list in any realistic way? I guess monofaction players with limited collections might expand them in the meantime, but that's about it.
Raises hand.
I'm 100% certain that I'm going to be able to use the new AdMech stuff. So as soon as my order comes in at my local shop....
Likewise I picked a few things up, but I'm building Black Templars and, at least among the Primaris, there aren't too many potholes to worry about.
bullyboy wrote: I'm curious to see what the pace will be for codexes this time around.
As much as I like people getting there stuff ASAP, I think I’d like to see things slow right down this time, and give some time to actually test out and balance the game with itself. The last codexes were so inconsistent and felt really rushed.
alextroy wrote: Yeah. The most recent codex, the one codex released after Space Marines. I guess they are way behind the curve.
This is not a valid argument. The Space Marine codex went up for pre-order Aug 10. Faith and Fury, which included a ton of new rules for Space Marines, went up for pre-order on 16 Nov, just over 3 months later.
There is a 5 month gap between the wide release of Sisters codex and this book that should have had an update in it for them.
There's no excuse for the failure to produce an update for everybody. Harlequins and Deathwatch should have had a part to play in a book. Necrons and Sisters as well. If they could add new rules to a 3 month old book, then nothing was stopping them from doing it for Sisters.
I can see why people would buy more models in a faction they already have a significant army in without knowing details of 9th, that makes sense.
I don't have a significant army of AdMech. I've got a HQ tech guy, 2 min. sized Ranger units, 1 squad of Electro-priests, & 6 Kastelans (+2 tech guys for them).
Come July though....
In terms of models, the old GW rule is still in effect... what sucked in the last edition will be good. What was good in the last edition will be awful.
This motivates people to buy replacemets for the previous "good stuff".
As for Detatchments? 1 Patrol 5 Brigade seems a given.
The bigger question is for different factions. Will those form the same Codex, but a different faction, have an increased cost and, if so, by how much? Further, will those NOT from the same Codex have the same increased cost or a different one?
For instance, if my Ultramarines want to bring a patrol along, does the cost look like this
Ultramarines (1)
Dark Angles (1)
Eldar (2)
Or
Ultramarines (1)
Dark Angles (2)
Eldar (3)
I'm not sure yet. I think +0 for Codex but faction (so, bringing some Bad moons with your Goffs doesn't have an increased cost) while a different Codex will cost 1 more, but …not sure yet.
I think the whole "soup tax" was probably just a misunderstanding and what they were talking about were detachment costs, regardless of whether it's the same codex or different. But we'll see.
The bottom line for my list-building is if it takes more than 2CP to take an aeldari faction patrol or spearhead that isn't the same as my warlord's faction, it will seriously impact my list. If it's 2CP or less, I will go ahead and pay the 4CP tax for the 3-codex list because I would really like to try running it.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think the whole "soup tax" was probably just a misunderstanding and what they were talking about were detachment costs, regardless of whether it's the same codex or different. But we'll see.
The bottom line for my list-building is if it takes more than 2CP to take an aeldari faction patrol or spearhead that isn't the same as my warlord's faction, it will seriously impact my list. If it's 2CP or less, I will go ahead and pay the 4CP tax for the 3-codex list because I would really like to try running it.
I think the intent is to make it just expensive enough that people have to either really commit to a theme, or get something really good out of the mix to want to do it, but not make it so expensive that people are at a massive disadvantage playing with their mixed faction lists.
Obviously there is some points value for having extra rules and a mix of units, so some cost was definitely assigned, but I don't think GW went nuts with costing things out since a big part of the faction system is encouraging people to branch off into new army projects.
alextroy wrote: Apparently the world is full of people less wise then dakkanauts, since selling models doesn't appear to be a problem for GW right now. Remember, this is the company that see sales going so well they plan on repaying furlough funds to the government despite having no obligation to do so.
Actually they aren't allowed to give themselves bonuses and dividends to shareholders if they don't.
ClockworkZion wrote: Battalions cost 3. I imagine Brigades will be 5 and Patrols 1.
The others I'm less sure about. Maybe 3 since they operate like battalions that trade troops out for other slots?
Why on earth would Brigades be 5 and Patrols be 1? Those numbers should be reversed.
Because if Brigades were cheaper than Patrols and Battalions, it would be prohibitively expensive to add a second detachment in a 1000 point game. Remember you only get 6 CP for 501-1000 points with a 2 Detachment maximum. I'm not even sure it is possible to add a Brigade as a second detachment at that size. A patrol on the other hand is a small investment in points at the minimum level.
I hope that is correct. 2CP would be a reasonable price. Once you start getting beyond 2CP to take another detachment, it goes beyond a reasonable cost to just being punitive for the sake of being punitive.
yukishiro1 wrote: I hope that is correct. 2CP would be a reasonable price. Once you start getting beyond 2CP to take another detachment, it goes beyond a reasonable cost to just being punitive for the sake of being punitive.
I can see it being 2 cp for some of the more specialist detacjmebts like vanguard etc. But I'd also like to see them being slightly more expensive based on numbers of subfaction.
Made up example:
Patrol 1, codex1 = 1
Patrol 2, codex 2 = 2
Patrol 3, codex 3 = 3
No one will ever use more than two detachments, many players will just use one detachment. The CPs will be used to fuel stratagems, to make the game even more lethal.
By the inverse logic of substracting from a fixed amount, specialised detachments like Vanguard or Spearhead need to cost more than a Battalion.
By the logic of 8th, you get CP per detachment, and a single-battalion army has more CP than a single-Spearhead army.
If they invert that for 9th, a (free detachment plus a) single Battalion army gets 12 - 3 = 9 CP. For a (free detachment plus a) single-Spearhead army to end up with less CP than the Batallion-equivalent, it needs to cost more than 3 CP, i.e. 12 - X = <9CP.
But there's no reason to think they have inverted that. That's where I think people are going wrong. If you are going based on the logic that you're paying CP to get access to units in a different detachment, why would you pay more to get access to fewer units than to get access to more? Why should a double bat start with more CP than a bat + a patrol or spearhead in the logic of that new system? Doesn't make sense.
The point of the changes was to stop people feeling like they had to take double bat to maximize CP. It would be pretty silly if they ended up with a system where people still took double bat to maximize CP.
Sunny Side Up wrote: By the inverse logic of substracting from a fixed amount, specialised detachments like Vanguard or Spearhead need to cost more than a Battalion.
By the logic of 8th, you get CP per detachment, and a single-battalion army has more CP than a single-Spearhead army.
If they invert that for 9th, a (free detachment plus a) single Battalion army gets 12 - 3 = 9 CP. For a (free detachment plus a) single-Spearhead army to end up with less CP than the Batallion-equivalent, it needs to cost more than 3 CP, i.e. 12 - X = <9CP.
Arguably they do cost more already because they can't be discounted like core detachments.
Because they said that a pure Terminator army or a pure Custodes Jetbike army would still have less CP than a rounded-out Guard Battalion with a bit of everything.
Now, the difference also will not be as huge, as you get your Warlord-detachment for free, and squeezing stuff into a single Battalion or single Spearhead will net you more CP than using double-Battalion or double-Spearhead.
But the "troop-tax" armies from Battalions and Brigades will still have more CP than the "tanks only" or "elite-infantry only" armies, even if the difference is allegedly smaller than in 8th.
Sure, the "precise" logic isn't known. But by and large it sounded to me like a double-battalion army will have more CP in 9th than a double-Spearhead army (if, once again, with a smaller difference than in 8th).
At the very least, it seems extremely improbable to assume a double-Spearhead army would end up having more CP than a double-Battalion army (which would be the case, if Spearhead-style detachments cost 2 CP vs. the Battalions 3 CP).
it doesn't suprise me they've not given us the detachment rules fully previewed, if 8E is anything to go by detachment rules will be something you need to buy the actual rulebook for (as opposed to the free rules PDF) so previewing evrything would hurt rule book sales
That's making a lot of assumptions about GW consistency with power curves (which historically is wildly inconsistent), and they stated already that updated codexes will simply copy a chunk of the stuff published in PA books. The 'extras' gained from having both is going to be very small, potentially incompatible and likely to be a detriment just as often as it turns out to be a benefit.
And that assumes that most factions actually got a notable power curve bump from PA. But I'm sure lots of folks will want to argue about that.
Yes CHUNK. But not all. They have flat out said so. And since you don't pay anything(apart from cash) to have those options it's always better to have them than not.
If you disagree I'm sure you won't mind playing right now without PA books
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: But there's no reason to think they have inverted that. That's where I think people are going wrong. If you are going based on the logic that you're paying CP to get access to units in a different detachment, why would you pay more to get access to fewer units than to get access to more? Why should a double bat start with more CP than a bat + a patrol or spearhead in the logic of that new system? Doesn't make sense.
The point of the changes was to stop people feeling like they had to take double bat to maximize CP. It would be pretty silly if they ended up with a system where people still took double bat to maximize CP.
Less tax, more better units. If spearhead etc cost less than 3 there's no point taking 2nd battalion anyway. Just take better detachment.
And brigade would be even more ridiculous as on that logic it would then cost more than 3...More CP cost, more tax...
Reason to your "why" is "balance". Interested in that?
Can't prove it yet but from joining the dots on some of the things stu has said on stream and trying to make it make sence
Additional codex 1CP
Super Heavy Aux 1CP
Patrol 2CP
Battalion 3CP
Brigade 4 or 5CP (Double brigade was basically called a relic of 8th by someone)
Specialist detachments?
Super Heavy detachments I think 3CP (6CP would be unplayable)
Drukari Raiding parties would still start on 12CP with tripple patrol
GW doesnt belive in tax units outside of troops as they think the points values assigned to unist are what they are "balanced"/worth.
Brigade is more CP than Battalion though fairly sure Stu has confirmed it.
Wild rumour, to be taken with a lethal amount of salt.
Apparently a play tester has said there are roughly 30 new Space Marine units, that old Marines are going up to two wounds, and Orks are getting a Warboss on Cybersquig.
I’m hearing this fourth hand, so I stress, take a mountain of salt. But 30 new Space Marines units doesn’t sound impossible, especially if all the Codex’s get new characters or units (Primaris Sanguinary Guard please) and we already know nine new units are in Indomitus (eight if you don’t include the Chaplain) with the ATV, Turret and Landspeeder so we’d already be nearly halfway there.
I stress, salt, salt salt.
bullyboy wrote: I'm curious to see what the pace will be for codexes this time around.
As much as I like people getting there stuff ASAP, I think I’d like to see things slow right down this time, and give some time to actually test out and balance the game with itself. The last codexes were so inconsistent and felt really rushed.
That's the problem, a lot of factions are still using those rushed codexes. Csm need a new codex. I'm sick of being team wombo combo.
diepotato47 wrote: Wild rumour, to be taken with a lethal amount of salt.
Apparently a play tester has said there are roughly 30 new Space Marine units, that old Marines are going up to two wounds, and Orks are getting a Warboss on Cybersquig.
I’m hearing this fourth hand, so I stress, take a mountain of salt. But 30 new Space Marines units doesn’t sound impossible, especially if all the Codex’s get new characters or units (Primaris Sanguinary Guard please) and we already know nine new units are in Indomitus (eight if you don’t include the Chaplain) with the ATV, Turret and Landspeeder so we’d already be nearly halfway there.
I stress, salt, salt salt.
Unless they pull the "all marines are just marines now" card I can't see it at all, the only bit likely is 30 units and a cybersquig would be awesome.
diepotato47 wrote: Wild rumour, to be taken with a lethal amount of salt.
Apparently a play tester has said there are roughly 30 new Space Marine units, that old Marines are going up to two wounds, and Orks are getting a Warboss on Cybersquig.
I’m hearing this fourth hand, so I stress, take a mountain of salt. But 30 new Space Marines units doesn’t sound impossible, especially if all the Codex’s get new characters or units (Primaris Sanguinary Guard please) and we already know nine new units are in Indomitus (eight if you don’t include the Chaplain) with the ATV, Turret and Landspeeder so we’d already be nearly halfway there.
I stress, salt, salt salt.
That would be controversial as it really inflates the D2, even D4 flat weapons are needed against Iron hands.
bullyboy wrote: I'm curious to see what the pace will be for codexes this time around.
I imagine they'll be slower, butt faster than prior to 8th and more likely to only have 1-2 new models than big lump releases at once (except for loyalist Marines obviously).
I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
Gremore wrote: I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.
Gremore wrote: I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.
It might look odd with the difference in size between old marines and primaris, but it’s no different really from the difference between RT era marines and more recent ones, or the size differences between old and new terminators, and many other models from other factions too.
I'd speculate sales is the driving factor to not make Marines equivalent to Primaris. I would expect another round of Marines to become Legends when the next Marine codex is released.
Gremore wrote: I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
Yeah, I cannot help but think they're purposefully not quite doing that and slow-walking the update purely so people cannot just instantly proxy their whole existing marine army.
If we assume that "flying tanks" and "not flying tanks" are the rough equivalents of one another, and people are cool with just proxying to rough equivalents, the old marine units we're still waiting on are:
-Whirlwinds
-Vanquishers
-Predators
-Tacticals with heavy weapons
-Tacticals with flamers
-jump pack assault marines
-Land speeders (depending on whether you consider the spacemario kart to be the new Attack Bike or the new Land Speeder)
-Assault Terminators
Barring the oddball units like the antiair tanks and assuming you just keep stuff like Centurions and Flyers with the justification that it might be a primaris in there you don't know.
There are certainly enough primaris equivalent units that people can (and do) proxy their classic marine armies as primaris already, but there are also a number of things that don't quite fit and primaris units with no non-primaris equivalent. And you already have to kind of make the unified squads out of what were previously special weapons - I have seen people doing it with like all their plasma gun/plasma cannon modeled marines as Hellblasters and I'm sure we'll see all-melta guy squads of the new primaris meltinators
-Invictus (invictor? I forget)
-Suppressors
-Inceptors
-infiltrators/other squad that does that kit
If we assume Reivers and Eliminators give you a way to use basically all the builds of Scout, aggressors = tactical termies, repulsors = land raiders and impulsors = rhinos, that does give you a lot of leeway. but GW certainly has not seemed to be in a hurry to get a full proxy-force available, and they've been releasing multiple kits for what was, previously, just one unit (like Scouts, or now like Assault Marines, where I would guess optional jump packs will not be coming in the assault intercessor kit, and I guess that kit is just purely monobuild)
Gremore wrote: I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.
It might look odd with the difference in size between old marines and primaris, but it’s no different really from the difference between RT era marines and more recent ones, or the size differences between old and new terminators, and many other models from other factions too.
They don't actively encourage us to play RT marines as proxy 7th edition marines though, which is what he's suggesting by them aligning Primaris and oldmarine profiles. Yes, people probably do play with odd-looking mongrel armies, but that's not the official aesthetic that GW are trying to sell.
The hard-Core competitive crowd is certainly still married to Smash Captains, Thunderfires, Centurions and other retro stuff, but the average guy‘s Marine Army I see used at the local GW is all Primaris anyhow.
I doubt GW will nudge it much. Old Marines will continue to have rules alongside ancient Finecast Eldar units and what Not that tournament players will dig through for broken combos they can then relabel as „madz skillz“ while most 40K players will more and more ignore them eventually.
I think the defense of my point comes to this: will you see a new "old marine" unit or character anytime soon?
Of course GW supports older casts with rules, that in no way is what I'm suggesting as it would invalidate 80% of the Eldar army.
What I am saying is, just because they exist now and are supported now doesn't mean they are part of GW's longterm plan, and I am not surprised if those missing units like flamers, whirlwinds, and assault jump packers, get changed to primaris in the future so that everything is this primaris line. Anything they don't see value in converting might just go the way of the dodo, and it would not be the first time GW squatted used units.
The fact that Smash Captains are a thing still is more a bi-product of tournament gaming for the best bang for the buck, not a bi-product of GW support and desire.
Gremore wrote: I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
It also could be because if they changed over wholesale like they did with some AoS armies, they'd have an outright revolt. They decided that a few armies from AoS were okay to scrap without drawing too much ire and losing too much of its playerbase. Imagine if they came out all at once and invalidated all Space Marine armies out there with Primaris. It would be the death of 40K, most likely. Furthermore, I doubt they had the resources (molds, etc.) to replace everything all at once. Phasing in Primaris was the only option. But I agree with you in that the old marines will be going away for good in the near future.
Jidmah wrote: I don't see why they would stop selling them as long as the molds don't break.
Same reason they stopped selling all the other minis they used to make. It wasn't too long ago they were selling 1980's Jes Goodwin Chaos champions. They obviously have the moulds for them yet I can't buy any.
Jidmah wrote: I don't see why they would stop selling them as long as the molds don't break.
Same reason they stopped selling all the other minis they used to make. It wasn't too long ago they were selling 1980's Jes Goodwin Chaos champions. They obviously have the moulds for them yet I can't buy any.
Gremore wrote: I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
Yeah, I cannot help but think they're purposefully not quite doing that and slow-walking the update purely so people cannot just instantly proxy their whole existing marine army.
If we assume that "flying tanks" and "not flying tanks" are the rough equivalents of one another, and people are cool with just proxying to rough equivalents, the old marine units we're still waiting on are:
-Whirlwinds
-Vanquishers
-Predators
-Tacticals with heavy weapons
-Tacticals with flamers
-jump pack assault marines
-Land speeders (depending on whether you consider the spacemario kart to be the new Attack Bike or the new Land Speeder)
-Assault Terminators
Barring the oddball units like the antiair tanks and assuming you just keep stuff like Centurions and Flyers with the justification that it might be a primaris in there you don't know.
There are certainly enough primaris equivalent units that people can (and do) proxy their classic marine armies as primaris already, but there are also a number of things that don't quite fit and primaris units with no non-primaris equivalent. And you already have to kind of make the unified squads out of what were previously special weapons - I have seen people doing it with like all their plasma gun/plasma cannon modeled marines as Hellblasters and I'm sure we'll see all-melta guy squads of the new primaris meltinators
-Invictus (invictor? I forget)
-Suppressors
-Inceptors
-infiltrators/other squad that does that kit
If we assume Reivers and Eliminators give you a way to use basically all the builds of Scout, aggressors = tactical termies, repulsors = land raiders and impulsors = rhinos, that does give you a lot of leeway. but GW certainly has not seemed to be in a hurry to get a full proxy-force available, and they've been releasing multiple kits for what was, previously, just one unit (like Scouts, or now like Assault Marines, where I would guess optional jump packs will not be coming in the assault intercessor kit, and I guess that kit is just purely monobuild)
Well, the Primaris ”Land Speeder” and Predator are already leaked in the blurry image. So after they are out we’re basically only waiting for Primaris Terminators/Centurions style unit and they cover all the niches. Midget Marines will go to Legends probably in 10th edition.
***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.
Gremore wrote: I wouldnt really be that surprised, if they slowly start to find a way to homogenize the "older" marine units with the Primaris ones. I kind of feel, and maybe it's just me (it's not), that the Primaris update was always going to be the slow replacement to phase out all old marine models into the new new. It's kind of a color-by-numbers process they're following, not wholly unseen in other industries. It won't be too long before they have a Primaris version of everything 'old marines' had, so why would it be unbelievable to think they'd make the retirement of older marines easier by making their stats the same so they can eventually say "oh your older marines are just now the primaris version proxies".
Firstly because that would net them less profit than if people bought their entire army as Primaris, so they'd want to disincentivise what you're suggesting there. Secondly it would look a bit crap, if they're all supposed to be Primaris but half the army are stumpy marines.
It might look odd with the difference in size between old marines and primaris, but it’s no different really from the difference between RT era marines and more recent ones, or the size differences between old and new terminators, and many other models from other factions too.
They don't actively encourage us to play RT marines as proxy 7th edition marines though, which is what he's suggesting by them aligning Primaris and oldmarine profiles. Yes, people probably do play with odd-looking mongrel armies, but that's not the official aesthetic that GW are trying to sell.
Honestly though, that is actually the norm for GW. They're known to keep options around for long long long long after models are in print, the reason the "no model no rules" policy is so controversial. New armies are even put out with "nostalgia-based" options fairly often. As an example I have a bunch of RT-era harlequins, which were largely equipped with swords, harlequins' kisses, powerfists, and 'Lightning claws' that were wrist-mounted. Lo and Behold, the 7th era kit comes out, and it's got swords, a glove-based weapon, a kiss, and a slightly altered anti-horde wrist weapon in the embrace - just so happens all my old models have a handy proxy to use.
***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.
With regards to "Dense Terrain"
Chunky wording aside (likely an attempt to head off the rules lawyers, I like it.
Kinda pisses on the Raven Guard's bonfire a bit though, since they can't stack it.
***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.
With regards to "Dense Terrain"
Chunky wording aside (likely an attempt to head off the rules lawyers, I like it.
Kinda pisses on the Raven Guard's bonfire a bit though, since they can't stack it.
This also may contain a sneaky twofer - I'd bet that the rule for claiming Cover benefits from Area Terrain is "a model being on or within" the defined boundary of the terrain, and the rule for claiming Cover benefits from an Obstacle is a model being within 3" and the obstacle being closer to the firing model than the claimant model.
Eh. The Raven Guard(and likely anybody else who they reword this to match...looking at you Alaitoc, Alpha Legion, and Stygies!) can't get a -2 to the rolls targeting them...but they can still cancel out a positive modifier.
***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.
With regards to "Dense Terrain"
.. eehhhmm anyone noticed how this is REGARDLESS IF THE TARGETED UNIT IS IN TERRAIN?!?!
So you’ll get the bonus even for intervening terrain!
***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.
With regards to "Dense Terrain"
This rule doesn't work...
If I have a Space Marine on a base, it's feet are blocking part of the base, so I can't draw a line to "every" part of the base. Also, the part of the base on the back of the model being blocked by the rest of the base. Also, the part on the bottom of the base on the table.
"Every part of the hull? Does this mean if I park my fellblade 3 behind a 3 tall obstacle with this trait that's only 3 inches wide it's still -1 to be hit? Am I reading this right?
***These apply to things like forests and dense industrial ruins, where protection comes more from difficulty in picking out a target, rather than the shots physically being blocked.
With regards to "Dense Terrain"
This rule doesn't work...
If I have a Space Marine on a base, it's feet are blocking part of the base, so I can't draw a line to "every" part of the base. Also, the part of the base on the back of the model being blocked by the rest of the base. Also, the part on the bottom of the base on the table.
The rule does work. There is no reference to LOS. It is can you trace a line. The line can pass through solid objects, it even says the line can pass through the terrain itself. The -1 to hit is applied if the line you trace passed through or over dense terrain. No reference on if it does or doesn’t pass through anything else including other models, other terrain the front of the base to reach the back of the base etc. So the rule does work.
I expect LOS is determined separately from determining if the target benefits from dense terrain.
If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.
As I understand the rule you don't need to be able to see the back of the model's base, just trace a straight line to it without that line passing over or through the Dense terrain.
If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.
The terrain has holes to allow for LOS. Imagine something like a forest where with infinite amount of lines you can draw to some portion of the visible targets base. That being said, it might be a case of you can draw lines "though" other models just fine for the purposes of determining terrain, so it's not the situation I described.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
And if GW thinks they can appease that attitude by trying to write more legalistic rules, they aaaaaaare wrong. People will start talking about "layers of atoms" and alternate definitions of words and whether you can actually draw an imaginary line if you don't have an imaginary pencil - anything to maintain the "thing everyone else thinks is wrong, I am correct" attitude.
If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.
The terrain has holes to allow for LOS. Imagine something like a forest where with infinite amount of lines you can draw to some portion of the visible targets base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.
Again, the dense terrain rule makes no reference to LOS. Being able to “see” what the line is drawn to is not required.
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
And if GW thinks they can appease that attitude by trying to write more legalistic rules, they aaaaaaare wrong. People will start talking about "layers of atoms" and alternate definitions of words and whether you can actually draw an imaginary line if you don't have an imaginary pencil - anything to maintain the "thing everyone else thinks is wrong, I am correct" attitude.
Lines don't have a length, they are by definition infinite. The term you want is a Line Segment. Also, lines don't have a width, by definition, they are one dimensional objects (their slope).
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.
I do but we then spend 2 hours arguing over how many times the dice must rotate to count as "rolling the dice" vs "dropping the dice"
I have not passed through IH and Eldar Flyer spam lists to bandy words with a rules layer like yourself. Go back to the YMDC that awaits you and your master, BCB!
I often agree with you, but are you sure you read the rule correctly this time? Because your diagram is kinda useless? The line passes over the terrain = target gains cover.
Great, the stream is just about the inquisition in Pariah and nothing to do with 9th :C
I thought they said they’d be talking about 9th each day until it’s release?
If you can illustrate to me how this rule specifies that a line that is allowed explicitly to pass through the piece of terrain is not allowed to pass thru the model or the atoms of the base, I will say I agree with your little premise here.
The terrain has holes to allow for LOS. Imagine something like a forest where with infinite amount of lines you can draw to some portion of the visible targets base. That being said, it might be a case of you can draw lines "though" other models just fine for the purposes of determining terrain, so it's not the situation I described.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
Following the rules is rules lawyering now? Tell me, do you make your opponents roll to hit when shooting their Boltguns? Yes or No, one word answer please.
You are making an assumption that the rule cares whether a line that is IMAGINARY passes thru parts of the firing or target model, other pieces of terrain that do not have the DENSE COVER trait, other models that may or may not have that trait, but it does not.
The rule only cares if the line passes through pieces of terrain with the DENSE COVER trait that are more than 3" tall from the highest point. That's it. That's the only thing the line ISNT allowed to pass through. I would imagine that the general rule for targeting Line of Sight will work more like the rule you're imagining here, but most likely it will be permissive (ANY part of the model) rather than exclusive (EVERY part of the model) to avoid this issue.
The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
And if GW thinks they can appease that attitude by trying to write more legalistic rules, they aaaaaaare wrong. People will start talking about "layers of atoms" and alternate definitions of words and whether you can actually draw an imaginary line if you don't have an imaginary pencil - anything to maintain the "thing everyone else thinks is wrong, I am correct" attitude.
Lines don't have a length, they are by definition infinite. The term you want is a Line Segment. Also, lines don't have a width, by definition, they are one dimensional objects (their slope).
There's no problem with a 1mm thick line outside of geometry (hint, if we're already defining a width we're obviously talking about lines in the more colloquial everyday sense that word is understood). Ultimately, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I think it's been shown just from reading the rule that it doesn't require LoS and does seem to function perfectly well.
Nothing new today. They're discussing Inquisitors in the Pariah book.
At one point he actually said that Inquisitors have "total freedom to do what is necessary". That made me laugh given that Inquisitors are one of the most hamstrung lists when it comes to weapon options and actual choices.
The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
Yes, because imagine in a dynamic battle, the people aren’t static on the sections of base they’re glued to. These dudes would be standing side on and as close to the cover as possible, essentially standing on the small portion of base that is covered by the dense terrain.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nothing new today. They're discussing Inquisitors in the Pariah book.
At one point he actually said that Inquisitors have "total freedom to do what is necessary". That made me laugh given that Inquisitors are one of the most hamstrung lists when it comes to weapon options and actual choices.
Yeah, I remember when Inquisitors had access to all sorts of really cool stuff specifically so you could take your radical Ordo Xenos Inquisitor with all their weird and wonderful tech.
Kind of weird decisions from GW over their recent streams. Last week we had two on painting/models and now we get two on Pariah. Kind of implies they don't think there's much to talk about with 9th edition, especially when you consider they dedicated an entire stream to the Blast rule. If you can stretch out discussion of a single rule that far I'm sure you can find enough discussion to fill the next 4 weeks or so.
puma713 wrote: So, if I am understanding correctly (and if the terrain has the DENSE keyword), this should make nearly all indirect fire weapons a -1 to hit?
Yes please.
FWIW, on stream they heavily implied Sector Mechanicus terrain and Forests would have the Dense keyword.
McGibs wrote: The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
That's not what he's saying.
Look at the line again:
"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."
It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain. And that's not even factoring in that the model itself will block LOS to some of the base, meaning it remains impossible to draw a straight line to "every part" of the base.
puma713 wrote: So, if I am understanding correctly (and if the terrain has the DENSE keyword), this should make nearly all indirect fire weapons a -1 to hit?
We really don't have much info on how (or even if) indirect fire weapons have changed. They may completely ignore intervening terrain for all we know, but come with an inbuilt -1 to hit modifier when firing out of LoS.
I often agree with you, but are you sure you read the rule correctly this time? Because your diagram is kinda useless? The line passes over the terrain = target gains cover.
My point is the "every part of at least one model's base" is an impossibility because the base itself blocks those lines, unless the lines can go though models.
McGibs wrote: The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
That's not what he's saying.
Look at the line again:
"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."
It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain.
Where in the rule does it say that an IMAGINARY line cannot pass thru things?
is that part hidden behind the part where the rule says it CAN pass through terrain pieces with the DENSE COVER keyword?
McGibs wrote: The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
That's not what he's saying.
Look at the line again:
"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."
It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain.
Where does it say a line can’t pass through objects? It doesn’t. This particular imaginary line isn’t the same as the imaginary line used for LOS.
For dense terrain it doesn’t matter if the line passes through other models, other terrain, the front of the base to reach the back of the base. The only thing that matters is whether or not it passes over or through dense terrain of 3” or higher.
McGibs wrote: The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
That's not what he's saying.
Look at the line again:
"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."
It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain. And that's not even factoring in that the model itself will block LOS to some of the base, meaning it remains impossible to draw a straight line to "every part" of the base.
Again, please point out where in the rules it says the base blocks the lines from passing through it? It doesn't actually say that at all. The rule seems to have been written to be independent of the rules for LoS.
they're chatting about the new terrain rules on stream now. They just said that Sector Mechanicus terrain would get this rule, and heavily implied that it would not get "Light Cover"
"Don't hide behind a chain link fence if someone is shooting a boltgun at you it won't work."
I often agree with you, but are you sure you read the rule correctly this time? Because your diagram is kinda useless? The line passes over the terrain = target gains cover.
My point is the "every part of at least one model's base" is an impossibility because the base itself blocks those lines, unless the lines can go though models.
You sure about that bolded part? Doesn't seem like it to me just from the way the rule is worded. You're confusing how LoS currently works with what this rule is actually saying. They're different.
Slipspace wrote: Again, please point out where in the rules it says the base blocks the lines from passing through it? It doesn't actually say that at all. The rule seems to have been written to be independent of the rules for LoS.
To be fair, the rules would have to say that the lines can pass through the miniature/the base. Rules are permissive. "It doesn't say you can't" isn't a valid argument.
Having said that, I can see where you are coming from, as the rules focuses on straight lines not touching the cover, rather than the model's base/hull.
It's still a(nother) shockingly worded rule, and another rule that divorces Line of Sight from shooting in a weird way.
McGibs wrote: The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
That's not what he's saying.
Look at the line again:
"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."
It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain. And that's not even factoring in that the model itself will block LOS to some of the base, meaning it remains impossible to draw a straight line to "every part" of the base.
Look. I did it.
This rule is nothing about checking visibility. It's not LoS. This line measurement is just to check if terrain is intervening between two models, that's IT.
Mothman wrote: I feel like 8th turned everyone into insufferable rules lawyers
Nah, this was a thing even on 5th where people argued that models that didn't have eyes can't fire weapons.
Clearly the "every part" clause is talkimg about in a straight lone between the first and the defending model, which excludes the back of the base or tank from being considered. Basically the correct way the rule works allows for any small amount of cover, even if the model isn't fully protected by it, to generate a -1 to be hit.
I know BCB is just trying to be their usual self, but their weird insistance on how rules work always causes more confusion than it does to make the game better.
Is it just me, but i find my self reading these rules about 4 times over in places to get the gist of what they are trying to say?
perhaps its just new rule syndrome, anyone else getting this?
Spoiler:
Yeah, they actually mentioned on-stream just now that there are going to be two forms that the rules take, and this is the longform "full rule". there will also be brief bullet point summaries that mention in short form how the rule works. Probably something like
"If a terrain piece with this trait is 3" or taller, shooting attacks that pass over or through it suffer a -1 penalty to hit rolls. Models claiming Cover from a terrain piece with this trait do not suffer the penalty for that terrain piece."
I often agree with you, but are you sure you read the rule correctly this time? Because your diagram is kinda useless? The line passes over the terrain = target gains cover.
My point is the "every part of at least one model's base" is an impossibility because the base itself blocks those lines, unless the lines can go though models.
Well didnt those gus you're arguing with just repeatedly point out that this is the case? You're a decent rule lawyer. Lawyer the rule as written. Can't the line go through models and bases if specifically only dense terrain is listed as able to block the line?
Is it just me, but i find my self reading these rules about 4 times over in places to get the gist of what they are trying to say?
perhaps its just new rule syndrome, anyone else getting this?
Spoiler:
Yeah, they actually mentioned on-stream just now that there are going to be two forms that the rules take, and this is the longform "full rule". there will also be brief bullet point summaries that mention in short form how the rule works. Probably something like
"If a terrain piece with this trait is 3" or taller, shooting attacks that pass over or through it suffer a -1 penalty to hit rolls. Models claiming Cover from a terrain piece with this trait do not suffer the penalty for that terrain piece."
I updated my original post and more or less wrote exactly that! If this is the case that is great because what it also does is even if their are issues it introduces intention on top of RAW and also makes 90% of the times you need a rule much easier to follow.
torblind wrote: Well, according to "higher standards" of reading rules, it should be fine, shouldn't it?
Another problem is you have to make this check for every single model firing in a squad.
If I bring 20 necrons to shoot at 30 orks in cover, thats a hole bunch of lines that needs to be established before I get to roll any dice.
Not really. You just have to decide if you can see ONE of them. Choose the one that's most visible. If you can't draw lines to the ONE you chose, then the other 29 (if they're less visible) get the -1 to hit.
Only one model needs to fail the check to ignore the penalty.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Nothing new today. They're discussing Inquisitors in the Pariah book.
At one point he actually said that Inquisitors have "total freedom to do what is necessary". That made me laugh given that Inquisitors are one of the most hamstrung lists when it comes to weapon options and actual choices.
You're telling me. Back when 8th launched I wanted to do a heavilly converted army mounted up in Land Speeder Storms to represent the small grav vehicles the Inquisition has in the lore, and back it up with a Repulsor that the Inquisitor would ride in.
Can't do it because of "unit keywords" and then they killed my ability to even put that stuff in the same army as an Inquisitor and their retinue.
torblind wrote: Well, according to "higher standards" of reading rules, it should be fine, shouldn't it?
Another problem is you have to make this check for every single model firing in a squad.
If I bring 20 necrons to shoot at 30 orks in cover, thats a hole bunch of lines that needs to be established before I get to roll any dice.
Yea but in reality to stoop low get a model eye view and can see if any of your models can see any of their models NOT blocked by the cover and then (if needed) demonstrate the line.
Lines don't have a length, they are by definition infinite. The term you want is a Line Segment. Also, lines don't have a width, by definition, they are one dimensional objects (their slope).
Dude... lines are two dimensional. But yeah... you guys need to chill. This rule is fairly well explained. I am one of the first to criticize GW for the gak show they are running like now... but the rule is pretty clear.
So, ignoring the terrain rule, that Vertical Engagement Range seems like a good change depending on how high monsters and large walkers, etc can reach.
The fact that Carnifexes were said to have a generous VER makes me think it's 6", as that's how tall most terrain's (made by GW) first level is.
Could be less though.
torblind wrote: Well, according to "higher standards" of reading rules, it should be fine, shouldn't it?
Another problem is you have to make this check for every single model firing in a squad.
If I bring 20 necrons to shoot at 30 orks in cover, thats a hole bunch of lines that needs to be established before I get to roll any dice.
Not really. You just have to decide if you can see ONE of them. Choose the one that's most visible. If you can't draw lines to the ONE you chose, then the other 29 (if they're less visible) get the -1 to hit.
Only one model needs to fail the check to ignore the penalty.
The penalties are still on a model by model basis, the whole unit doesnt get -1 to hit though. It's the same as LoS: "These 3 models can see, those two cant", or range. I don't think we've ever had much problem with those cases, so I don't see why this would be any worse. It's usually pretty obvious how many models have a clear shot and how many don't, maybe one on the edge you actually have to check.
Carnikang wrote: The fact that Carnifexes were said to have a generous VER makes me think it's 6", as that's how tall most terrain's (made by GW) first level is.
Standard Sector Mechanicus/Imperialis terrain has 5" levels, which is why this 3" thing for dense terrain is odd. It's not half the standard level of their terrain, but is, in fact, the standard level of the old Cities of Death terrain.
But yes, the vertical thing is good. I do hope it's based off of Mechanicus/Imperialis terrain - basically anything standing on the first level or lower - as it'll make fighting in cities for armies like Tyranids a bit easier.
McGibs wrote: The rule says nothing about SEEING. You just have to draw a line. Does the line pass through Dense Terrain (again, regardless of actually drawing LoS through it)? Ok, apply the -1 to hit.
That's not what he's saying.
Look at the line again:
"... subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack... unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base..."
It says "every part" of the base. Given you can never draw a line to the other side of the model's base, because it's own base blocks itself, it's impossible to ignore dense terrain. And that's not even factoring in that the model itself will block LOS to some of the base, meaning it remains impossible to draw a straight line to "every part" of the base.
Look. I did it.
Spoiler:
This rule is nothing about checking visibility. It's not LoS. This line measurement is just to check if terrain is intervening between two models, that's IT.
torblind wrote: Well, according to "higher standards" of reading rules, it should be fine, shouldn't it?
Another problem is you have to make this check for every single model firing in a squad.
If I bring 20 necrons to shoot at 30 orks in cover, thats a hole bunch of lines that needs to be established before I get to roll any dice.
Not really. You just have to decide if you can see ONE of them. Choose the one that's most visible. If you can't draw lines to the ONE you chose, then the other 29 (if they're less visible) get the -1 to hit.
Only one model needs to fail the check to ignore the penalty.
Nope. You're assuming that the current structure of the terrain rules (whereby all models get it, or all models don't get it) is still in place. It seems like all the terrain rules we've seen so far are by model, rather than by unit.
Well, reading through these last 2 pages was painful. Thank God my coffee tasted good.
Luckily, most people will play the rule with no issues whatsoever.
the_scotsman wrote: Nope. You're assuming that the current structure of the terrain rules (whereby all models get it, or all models don't get it) is still in place. It seems like all the terrain rules we've seen so far are by model, rather than by unit.
torblind wrote: Well, according to "higher standards" of reading rules, it should be fine, shouldn't it?
Another problem is you have to make this check for every single model firing in a squad.
If I bring 20 necrons to shoot at 30 orks in cover, thats a hole bunch of lines that needs to be established before I get to roll any dice.
Not really. You just have to decide if you can see ONE of them. Choose the one that's most visible. If you can't draw lines to the ONE you chose, then the other 29 (if they're less visible) get the -1 to hit.
Only one model needs to fail the check to ignore the penalty.
Nope. You're assuming that the current structure of the terrain rules (whereby all models get it, or all models don't get it) is still in place. It seems like all the terrain rules we've seen so far are by model, rather than by unit.
Again, this isn't really that much different than what we're doing now, as someone else pointed out. Can 10 of my 20 Necron warriors see 3 of your 30 orks fully? Then I shoot with 3+ to hit with 10 and 4+ to hit with the other 10.
torblind wrote: Well, according to "higher standards" of reading rules, it should be fine, shouldn't it?
Another problem is you have to make this check for every single model firing in a squad.
If I bring 20 necrons to shoot at 30 orks in cover, thats a hole bunch of lines that needs to be established before I get to roll any dice.
Not really. You just have to decide if you can see ONE of them. Choose the one that's most visible. If you can't draw lines to the ONE you chose, then the other 29 (if they're less visible) get the -1 to hit.
Only one model needs to fail the check to ignore the penalty.
Nope. You're assuming that the current structure of the terrain rules (whereby all models get it, or all models don't get it) is still in place. It seems like all the terrain rules we've seen so far are by model, rather than by unit.
Again, this isn't really that much different than what we're doing now, as someone else pointed out. Can 10 of my 20 Necron warriors see 3 of your 30 orks fully? Then I shoot with 3+ to hit with 10 and 4+ to hit with the other 10.
Hmmmm. Actually, you have a good point there. This rule DOESN"T work model to model like the others do, because you don't assign targets of a to-hit roll until after the wound AFAIK. So unlike with the other ones that add +1 to save, it isn't easy to figure out what happens when you have a unit partially in cover.
Welp, I hope that means the general rules for area terrain and obstacles aren't still "every model in the unit must adhere to these strictures" that'd be a real bummer/yet another kick in the teeth to large units.
Again, this isn't really that much different than what we're doing now, as someone else pointed out. Can 10 of my 20 Necron warriors see 3 of your 30 orks fully? Then I shoot with 3+ to hit with 10 and 4+ to hit with the other 10.
Doesn't matter. It's impossible to see every part of a threedimensional object from a single vantage point (even ignoring the part that sits on the table). Something is always facing away from the point of view.
torblind wrote: Well, according to "higher standards" of reading rules, it should be fine, shouldn't it?
Another problem is you have to make this check for every single model firing in a squad.
If I bring 20 necrons to shoot at 30 orks in cover, thats a hole bunch of lines that needs to be established before I get to roll any dice.
Not really. You just have to decide if you can see ONE of them. Choose the one that's most visible. If you can't draw lines to the ONE you chose, then the other 29 (if they're less visible) get the -1 to hit.
Only one model needs to fail the check to ignore the penalty.
Nope. You're assuming that the current structure of the terrain rules (whereby all models get it, or all models don't get it) is still in place. It seems like all the terrain rules we've seen so far are by model, rather than by unit.
Again, this isn't really that much different than what we're doing now, as someone else pointed out. Can 10 of my 20 Necron warriors see 3 of your 30 orks fully? Then I shoot with 3+ to hit with 10 and 4+ to hit with the other 10.
Well, today you just need to see something of a model, not to determine if you see all of it, through perhaps opaque terrain, from every model on the firing unit. But yeah. Worst case scenario gets busy, the rest will be fine.
A -1 to hit from cover would be a lot more impactful if it wasn't capped at a max of a -1 to hit no matter what. This means that in a lot of cases there will be no actual penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons as infantry, no real penalty for shooting assault weapons after advancing, etc etc.
Hopefully they thought of this, and have allow this -1 to hit to stack on top of the -1 you might get from another source. Otherwise, it's usefulness is going to be quite minor.
yukishiro1 wrote: A -1 to hit from cover would be a lot more impactful if it wasn't capped at a max of a -1 to hit no matter what. This means that in a lot of cases there will be no actual penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons as infantry, no real penalty for shooting assault weapons after advancing, etc etc.
Hopefully they thought of this, and have allow this -1 to hit to stack on top of the -1 you might get from another source. Otherwise, it's usefulness is going to be quite minor.
This rule helps your ork boyz etc the most it seems and is another measure to help get infantry across the board. Their biggest threat is advertised as blast weapons which are usually vehicle mounted, giving the -1 a purpose.
yukishiro1 wrote: A -1 to hit from cover would be a lot more impactful if it wasn't capped at a max of a -1 to hit no matter what. This means that in a lot of cases there will be no actual penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons as infantry, no real penalty for shooting assault weapons after advancing, etc etc.
Hopefully they thought of this, and have allow this -1 to hit to stack on top of the -1 you might get from another source. Otherwise, it's usefulness is going to be quite minor.
This rule helps your ork boyz etc the most it seems and is another measure to help get infantry across the board. Their biggest threat is advertised as blast weapons which are usually vehicle mounted, giving the -1 a purpose.
It actually super doesn't though. Like, proportionally, almost all these terrain rules help higher-quality infantry way more than they help lower-quality infantry.
A space marine with a to-hit reroll drops from 88% to hit to 75% to hit, a 15% reduction.
Meanwhile, an ork (say, a SAG Big Mek for example) drops from a 39% hit to a 20% to hit, a 49% reduction.
It's exactly the same as the Light and Heavy cover bonuses, which are far more impactful percentage-wise the better your armor save gets (capping off at 2+) the penalty for -1 to hit is far worse the worse your BS is, again capping off at 6+.
That issue compounds if, as another poster pointed out, it is not possible to have a unit that is PARTIALLY benefitting from this rule. If the general rules for cover are worded like they are in 8th, meaning either the whole unit gets cover and a single model being out of cover makes the whole unit out of cover, this is yet another rule that penalizes larger squads of lower quality infantry disproportionately.
Yeah this is another bonus for elite infantry and a penalty for horde units. All you need is one model out of the cover and the other 29 models in cover don't benefit from it either, so the bigger your units, the harder it is to benefit from the -1 to hit this gives.
yukishiro1 wrote: A -1 to hit from cover would be a lot more impactful if it wasn't capped at a max of a -1 to hit no matter what. This means that in a lot of cases there will be no actual penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons as infantry, no real penalty for shooting assault weapons after advancing, etc etc.
Hopefully they thought of this, and have allow this -1 to hit to stack on top of the -1 you might get from another source. Otherwise, it's usefulness is going to be quite minor.
A space marine with a to-hit reroll drops from 88% to hit to 75% to hit, a 15% reduction.
Meanwhile, an ork (say, a SAG Big Mek for example) drops from a 39% hit to a 20% to hit, a 49% reduction.
what terrain rules would you propose that would be playable and balanced between orks and marines?
yukishiro1 wrote: A -1 to hit from cover would be a lot more impactful if it wasn't capped at a max of a -1 to hit no matter what. This means that in a lot of cases there will be no actual penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons as infantry, no real penalty for shooting assault weapons after advancing, etc etc.
Hopefully they thought of this, and have allow this -1 to hit to stack on top of the -1 you might get from another source. Otherwise, it's usefulness is going to be quite minor.
A space marine with a to-hit reroll drops from 88% to hit to 75% to hit, a 15% reduction.
Meanwhile, an ork (say, a SAG Big Mek for example) drops from a 39% hit to a 20% to hit, a 49% reduction.
what terrain rules would you propose that would be playable and balanced between orks and marines?
A FNP style rule (or improvement upon your FNP style rule) would provide exactly the same benefit, but would be much, MUUUUUUUUUUUCH less disproportionate between factions. And if you were concerned with nurgle, just make it not stack with other FNP rules.
The downside is it would take longer to resolve.
Either that, or make it the role of light infantry (because they seriously do not have any kind of effective role at this point, I do not know why you would want to have a light troop choice in this edition in general) that they are particularly good at taking and holding terrain, and make something like the old "4+ cover save" terrain available again.
That is really what I was hoping the "Defensible" trait would be. Instead it's a somewhat less impactful rule for counterattacking or using one particular once-per-turn stratagem.
This is also going to be a rather tedious rule to apply in practice, because although you only need to able to draw to one of the models you're shooting at to negate the bonus against all 30, each individual shooting model needs to try to draw its own individual lines to see if it can do so to any of the opposing models. So if you have a unit of 30 boyz shooting at say 10 marines with a dense cover terrain piece partially in-between, you may have to check the lines for all 30 boyz models and then split up shooting between those that get -1 to hit and those that don't.
Really, they are going all in on just destroying terrain as anything but a hindrance to 18+ wound model's.
I hope they have suitably considered this and not actually raised their points at this point as so far they are gaining nothing and loosing out of in all the rules previews.
astreus. Because "primaris". Personally, for chaos sake, and R&H in particular, I hope the rules team were forced to read 
