Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
how much you wanna be Tau players will argue they can use the overwatch start AND normal orverwatch XD
The new overwatch rule has a restriction stating that a unit can only ever fire overwatch once per turn I believe.
Which makes a lot more sense now.
Also, there is a rumor floating about from someone who got the "Character protection will now only be active if you're within a certain distance of a friendly unit" before that was announced, that says that FLY will now only allow you to move thru terrain and models, and will not allow you to fall back and shoot by default.
I feel like if you asked me to choose between "Tau units with FLY cannot fall back and shoot normally" and "Tau units can only initially trigger Overwatch with a 1cp Stratagem and can then chain FTGG off that" I would choose the former every single time.
Vector Strike wrote: Well, that might as well tell us Tau won't get any kind of specialized melee in this unit. Overwatch IS the Tau 'melee'
I'm sincerely hoping that the next Tau codex opens up some more Auxilia support for the army. I'd buy Tau in a heartbeat if I could play a mix of different minor Xenos races on the table.
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
It's to be expected though isn't it? Tau have good overwatch, it's what they do. When facing them you should expect to have to deal with it. The same strategies will still work, with possible new ones afforded by the new rules. I don't see anything stopping my warp talons from shredding them just as easily as they do now. Night Lords eat tau for breakfast, then turn what's left over into fashion accessories.
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
how much you wanna be Tau players will argue they can use the overwatch start AND normal orverwatch XD
The new overwatch rule has a restriction stating that a unit can only ever fire overwatch once per turn I believe.
Which makes a lot more sense now.
Also, there is a rumor floating about from someone who got the "Character protection will now only be active if you're within a certain distance of a friendly unit" before that was announced, that says that FLY will now only allow you to move thru terrain and models, and will not allow you to fall back and shoot by default.
I feel like if you asked me to choose between "Tau units with FLY cannot fall back and shoot normally" and "Tau units can only initially trigger Overwatch with a 1cp Stratagem and can then chain FTGG off that" I would choose the former every single time.
Overwatch -doesn't- have a restrictions on how many times you can shoot it. The only restriction is via Stratagem limits.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So a general rule that applies to everyone doesn't apply to Tau.
Wow... ?
How dare an army designed around shooting, overwatch, and a lack of close combat ability be able to shoot, overwatch, and be bad at close combat! These outrages never stop
H.B.M.C. wrote: So a general rule that applies to everyone doesn't apply to Tau.
Wow... ?
How dare an army designed around shooting, overwatch, and a lack of close combat ability be able to shoot, overwatch, and be bad at close combat! These outrages never stop
You mine sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and saltier as heck.
alextroy wrote: How dare an army designed around shooting, overwatch, and a lack of close combat ability be able to shoot, overwatch, and be bad at close combat! These outrages never stop
Not really the point I was making, but whatever...
..Apparently this big, shiny, central character for the Necrons is returning to the galaxy as the biggest baddest centrepieceiest miniature the Necrons have, and he's coming with a brand-new subfaction/subculture of necrons.
And the existing necrons are either joining up under his banner, or they're distrustful of the newly arrived necrons.
....Why does GW seem to have such a huge fetish for this kind of storyline recently? We've seen "Big dude come back, Reunifying Faction X, uh oh existing character Y maybe not trust...."
Seriously, they did this with Magnus, then Yvraine/Ynnead, then Guilliman/primaris, they're doing it with the Silent King, and they seem to be getting set up to do it with Vect.
Why? What reason do they have to pursue this story structure again and again? Couldn't it only possibly discourage people from buying the new miniature that GW presumably wants to sell? It certainly did that with the Ynnari, they seem to have been adopted about as popular with the eldar community and the 40k community as a whole as a wet fart in a crowded room. And we won't even get into the "Primaris Controversy".
..Apparently this big, shiny, central character for the Necrons is returning to the galaxy as the biggest baddest centrepieceiest miniature the Necrons have, and he's coming with a brand-new subfaction/subculture of necrons.
And the existing necrons are either joining up under his banner, or they're distrustful of the newly arrived necrons.
....Why does GW seem to have such a huge fetish for this kind of storyline recently? We've seen "Big dude come back, Reunifying Faction X, uh oh existing character Y maybe not trust...."
Seriously, they did this with Magnus, then Yvraine/Ynnead, then Guilliman/primaris, they're doing it with the Silent King, and they seem to be getting set up to do it with Vect.
Why? What reason do they have to pursue this story structure again and again? Couldn't it only possibly discourage people from buying the new miniature that GW presumably wants to sell? It certainly did that with the Ynnari, they seem to have been adopted about as popular with the eldar community and the 40k community as a whole as a wet fart in a crowded room. And we won't even get into the "Primaris Controversy".
It gives a narrative reason for the faction to fight itself obviously.
There's even a little micro-trend of it as well. half the new special charcters' shticks seem to be "their faction doesn't like this guy AT ALL, he's a renegade!"
-Stern and Kyganil
-Sczeras
-Fabius Bile
-Inquisitor Dragonlady
..Apparently this big, shiny, central character for the Necrons is returning to the galaxy as the biggest baddest centrepieceiest miniature the Necrons have, and he's coming with a brand-new subfaction/subculture of necrons.
And the existing necrons are either joining up under his banner, or they're distrustful of the newly arrived necrons.
....Why does GW seem to have such a huge fetish for this kind of storyline recently? We've seen "Big dude come back, Reunifying Faction X, uh oh existing character Y maybe not trust...."
Seriously, they did this with Magnus, then Yvraine/Ynnead, then Guilliman/primaris, they're doing it with the Silent King, and they seem to be getting set up to do it with Vect.
Why? What reason do they have to pursue this story structure again and again? Couldn't it only possibly discourage people from buying the new miniature that GW presumably wants to sell? It certainly did that with the Ynnari, they seem to have been adopted about as popular with the eldar community and the 40k community as a whole as a wet fart in a crowded room. And we won't even get into the "Primaris Controversy".
It gives a narrative reason for the faction to fight itself obviously.
but they were already doing that. They've been doing that the whole time. Necron dynaties dun like each other, that's already a thing.
..Apparently this big, shiny, central character for the Necrons is returning to the galaxy as the biggest baddest centrepieceiest miniature the Necrons have, and he's coming with a brand-new subfaction/subculture of necrons.
And the existing necrons are either joining up under his banner, or they're distrustful of the newly arrived necrons.
....Why does GW seem to have such a huge fetish for this kind of storyline recently? We've seen "Big dude come back, Reunifying Faction X, uh oh existing character Y maybe not trust...."
Seriously, they did this with Magnus, then Yvraine/Ynnead, then Guilliman/primaris, they're doing it with the Silent King, and they seem to be getting set up to do it with Vect.
Why? What reason do they have to pursue this story structure again and again? Couldn't it only possibly discourage people from buying the new miniature that GW presumably wants to sell? It certainly did that with the Ynnari, they seem to have been adopted about as popular with the eldar community and the 40k community as a whole as a wet fart in a crowded room. And we won't even get into the "Primaris Controversy".
Probably because it is an easy narrative device to bring out a character as new faction leader but allows space for "your dudes" if you dont like the new leader character, you have space to use whatever fluff you want. The other options are "silent king comes back and no one joins him" which would be odd and wouldnt warrent adding the character as faction head or "he comes back and everyone joins him" which means no space for your dudes if they dont. 40ks narrative exists to allow your fluff to fit in somewhere vs a cohesive narrative.
the_scotsman wrote: There's even a little micro-trend of it as well. half the new special charcters' shticks seem to be "their faction doesn't like this guy AT ALL, he's a renegade!"
-Stern and Kyganil
-Sczeras
-Fabius Bile
-Inquisitor Dragonlady
previously, central special characters' shticks have generally been
"they're their faction's head dude! Eveyrone will work with them because they're the big unifying honcho/they show up wherever their faction needs them to!"
the_scotsman wrote: There's even a little micro-trend of it as well. half the new special charcters' shticks seem to be "their faction doesn't like this guy AT ALL, he's a renegade!"
-Stern and Kyganil
-Sczeras
-Fabius Bile
-Inquisitor Dragonlady
Daemonfuge originally came out in 2000, so it's not really a "new" shtick.
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
how much you wanna be Tau players will argue they can use the overwatch start AND normal orverwatch XD
The new overwatch rule has a restriction stating that a unit can only ever fire overwatch once per turn I believe.
Which makes a lot more sense now.
Also, there is a rumor floating about from someone who got the "Character protection will now only be active if you're within a certain distance of a friendly unit" before that was announced, that says that FLY will now only allow you to move thru terrain and models, and will not allow you to fall back and shoot by default.
I feel like if you asked me to choose between "Tau units with FLY cannot fall back and shoot normally" and "Tau units can only initially trigger Overwatch with a 1cp Stratagem and can then chain FTGG off that" I would choose the former every single time.
That would be a welcome change, not just for tau, but especially for nerfing all those floating loyalist tanks.
One thing this proves is that the day one errata will be changing a lot more than points. It will be changing things like faction abilities. It looks like the errata will be more like an index for 9th.
BaconCatBug wrote: I mean, that's gotta be a new record for "let's introduce a rule that ignores a basic design principle of the edition because reasons."
Does ATSKNF in previous editions count? Ignoring like 90% of what morale does with most peoples' armies?
the_scotsman wrote: previously, central special characters' shticks have generally been
"they're their faction's head dude! Eveyrone will work with them because they're the big unifying honcho/they show up wherever their faction needs them to!"
Creed was hated by all the Cadian High Command, who thought he was some lowly gutterboy.
Also, Yarrick is the biggest marv stu there is. He's somehow a Commissar that is as inspirational as Macaroth and ALSO a tactical genius and ALSO totally killed an Ork while being an old geezer. The sooner he's ditched, the better off Guard will be.
Yarrick embodies the idea that you should fear anyone who made it to old age in a career that kills you when you're young.
And he killed the Ork at the cost of his arm and then basically went into shock and passed out on his feet. I mean it's not like he Marneus Calgar'd an Avatar or the Swarmlord.
And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
It's to be expected though isn't it? Tau have good overwatch, it's what they do. When facing them you should expect to have to deal with it. The same strategies will still work, with possible new ones afforded by the new rules. I don't see anything stopping my warp talons from shredding them just as easily as they do now. Night Lords eat tau for breakfast, then turn what's left over into fashion accessories.
It's also, putting it lightly, fething tedious to play against.
"Oh I have a combat army... well I guess i'll just give the tau castle 2 shooting phases"
Tau castles are the least fun army you can play against in the game. They have almost zero interaction with anyone. They sit in a corner and shoot and avoid all return fire by dumping it on hidden drones.
It's not like the riptide is going to be any more fun to charge "Oh, it overwatches, and then it shoots your unit dead in its shoot phase". It's pretty damn immune to any but the most excessive melee units already.
Way harder to kill than a knight, or any super heavy.
This, flatly, sucks for the game. GW needs to find a way to make tau play well that isn't "Sit in the corner and shoot and hope that by the end the enemy army has died before its gotten enough points". It's not even fun to beat. I never feel like I've "won" because I racked up points against a tau player that only moved his models after 90 percent of my army was shot to death, and the player just couldn't make up the points difference.
Sitting in a corner and tabling your opponent for the win doesn't win games in 9th. You have to be scoring objectives and if you're waiting until turn 5 to do so, you're going to lose.
WHC wrote:The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot,
Doesnt that like completely remove the entire purpose of the Inceptors in the Deathwatch? Or ya know their whole purpose in general?
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
It's to be expected though isn't it? Tau have good overwatch, it's what they do. When facing them you should expect to have to deal with it. The same strategies will still work, with possible new ones afforded by the new rules. I don't see anything stopping my warp talons from shredding them just as easily as they do now. Night Lords eat tau for breakfast, then turn what's left over into fashion accessories.
It's also, putting it lightly, fething tedious to play against.
"Oh I have a combat army... well I guess i'll just give the tau castle 2 shooting phases"
Tau castles are the least fun army you can play against in the game. They have almost zero interaction with anyone. They sit in a corner and shoot and avoid all return fire by dumping it on hidden drones.
It's not like the riptide is going to be any more fun to charge "Oh, it overwatches, and then it shoots your unit dead in its shoot phase". It's pretty damn immune to any but the most excessive melee units already.
Way harder to kill than a knight, or any super heavy.
This, flatly, sucks for the game. GW needs to find a way to make tau play well that isn't "Sit in the corner and shoot and hope that by the end the enemy army has died before its gotten enough points". It's not even fun to beat. I never feel like I've "won" because I racked up points against a tau player that only moved his models after 90 percent of my army was shot to death, and the player just couldn't make up the points difference.
Have you considered using more terrain? That is getting buffed in 9th ed, you know.
WHC wrote:The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot,
Doesnt that like completely remove the entire purpose of the Inceptors in the Deathwatch? Or ya know their whole purpose in general?
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
It's to be expected though isn't it? Tau have good overwatch, it's what they do. When facing them you should expect to have to deal with it. The same strategies will still work, with possible new ones afforded by the new rules. I don't see anything stopping my warp talons from shredding them just as easily as they do now. Night Lords eat tau for breakfast, then turn what's left over into fashion accessories.
It's also, putting it lightly, fething tedious to play against.
"Oh I have a combat army... well I guess i'll just give the tau castle 2 shooting phases"
Tau castles are the least fun army you can play against in the game. They have almost zero interaction with anyone. They sit in a corner and shoot and avoid all return fire by dumping it on hidden drones.
It's not like the riptide is going to be any more fun to charge "Oh, it overwatches, and then it shoots your unit dead in its shoot phase". It's pretty damn immune to any but the most excessive melee units already.
Way harder to kill than a knight, or any super heavy.
This, flatly, sucks for the game. GW needs to find a way to make tau play well that isn't "Sit in the corner and shoot and hope that by the end the enemy army has died before its gotten enough points". It's not even fun to beat. I never feel like I've "won" because I racked up points against a tau player that only moved his models after 90 percent of my army was shot to death, and the player just couldn't make up the points difference.
I see your tau castle and I raise you a marine castle.
Like a tau castle, but all the guns shoot at full effectiveness 30" out, their to-hit rerolls aren't limited to once per game and don't require them to be stationary, and they punch more if you get them in melee than if you leave them at range.
WHC wrote:The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot,
Doesnt that like completely remove the entire purpose of the Inceptors in the Deathwatch? Or ya know their whole purpose in general?
I missed that. It's a good change in general. No idea what the plan for Inceptors will be.
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
It's to be expected though isn't it? Tau have good overwatch, it's what they do. When facing them you should expect to have to deal with it. The same strategies will still work, with possible new ones afforded by the new rules. I don't see anything stopping my warp talons from shredding them just as easily as they do now. Night Lords eat tau for breakfast, then turn what's left over into fashion accessories.
It's also, putting it lightly, fething tedious to play against.
"Oh I have a combat army... well I guess i'll just give the tau castle 2 shooting phases"
Tau castles are the least fun army you can play against in the game. They have almost zero interaction with anyone. They sit in a corner and shoot and avoid all return fire by dumping it on hidden drones.
It's not like the riptide is going to be any more fun to charge "Oh, it overwatches, and then it shoots your unit dead in its shoot phase". It's pretty damn immune to any but the most excessive melee units already.
Way harder to kill than a knight, or any super heavy.
This, flatly, sucks for the game. GW needs to find a way to make tau play well that isn't "Sit in the corner and shoot and hope that by the end the enemy army has died before its gotten enough points". It's not even fun to beat. I never feel like I've "won" because I racked up points against a tau player that only moved his models after 90 percent of my army was shot to death, and the player just couldn't make up the points difference.
I see your tau castle and I raise you a marine castle.
Like a tau castle, but all the guns shoot at full effectiveness 30" out, their to-hit rerolls aren't limited to once per game and don't require them to be stationary, and they punch more if you get them in melee than if you leave them at range.
Is this the first time we've gotten a forgeworld model featured in standard GW art? That's a Necron Pylon up there.
Funny that's its one of the models that features the old clear plastic rods and crystal
WHC wrote:The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot,
Doesnt that like completely remove the entire purpose of the Inceptors in the Deathwatch? Or ya know their whole purpose in general?
I missed that. It's a good change in general. No idea what the plan for Inceptors will be.
I hate playing against Tau for pretty much the reasons stratigo mentioned. Every other faction is playing Warhammer: 40k. Tau are playing a completely different game all together. We're all playing a strategy game, they're playing a rail shooter.
EnTyme wrote: I hate playing against Tau for pretty much the reasons stratigo mentioned. Every other faction is playing Warhammer: 40k. Tau are playing a completely different game all together. We're all playing a strategy game, they're playing a rail shooter.
They can play one, but if they aren't trying to be mobile to cap objectives and the like, they're going to lose every game in the new edition.
Plus Crisis Suits just got nerfed by that fly change to boot.
I wish I could take some satisfaction from being right about the overwatch change amounting to very little because it's going to be dolled out liberally (as in, to an entire faction), but I don't, because it is another case of a bait and switch. They originally said Tau get "two for one" overwatch, but apparently that meant "totally free overwatch across the whole army plus 8th edition FTGG." Oh well.
It isn't necessarily the end of the world, but it's disappointing to see that they're already breaking the basic rule of the edition before it's even released, in order to preserve the worst design flaw in the game in the form of the mono-phase 8th edition T'au army.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sitting in a corner and tabling your opponent for the win doesn't win games in 9th. You have to be scoring objectives and if you're waiting until turn 5 to do so, you're going to lose.
It CAN. 9th mission rules are based heavily off ITC and NOVA, and tau castles can and have top tabled on those. It is entirely reliant on just how hard you gak on your opponent turn 1 and 2. If you completely cripple the enemy army while only taking minimal losses since you have 40 or 50 drones, then you have 4 turns to just run up the score. Tau are, ironically, fugging fantastic at ruining the day of most space marines. But they fall a bit flat competitively against other hard endurance armies cause they can't afford to break up the castle and if they get pinned trying to chunk through 90 plaguebearers in their face, they do lose hard on points.
But, again, even winning on points against the tau castle is unsatisfying. Because you "won" by dying sufficiently slowly that the tau player ran out of time to score. Not by, you know, interacting with the tau army or killing its big pieces.
EnTyme wrote: I hate playing against Tau for pretty much the reasons stratigo mentioned. Every other faction is playing Warhammer: 40k. Tau are playing a completely different game all together. We're all playing a strategy game, they're playing a rail shooter.
They can play one, but if they aren't trying to be mobile to cap objectives and the like, they're going to lose every game in the new edition.
Plus Crisis Suits just got nerfed by that fly change to boot.
T'au are already a very mobile faction, with excellent ability to hold the middle of the board. Look at the way Siegler plays T'au; he moves to the center of the board and forces you to stay away or else anything that comes within range and LOS just dies. Reducing the board size only buffed this. The changes to FLY and fall back barely touch T'au because if you're playing T'au and letting people get into combat with your main shooters, you've already lost. That's what all those shield drones and breachers are for.
This just encourages the T'au castle even more than it did in the past, sadly.
It's a step in the wrong direction for the faction. What T'au desperately needed was better melee capability and for more of their units to be made viable, not doubling down on the castle with drone shields strategy.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wish I could take some satisfaction from being right about the overwatch change amounting to very little because it's going to be dolled out liberally (as in, to an entire faction), but I don't, because it is another case of a bait and switch. They originally said Tau get "two for one" overwatch, but apparently that meant "totally free overwatch across the whole army plus 8th edition FTGG." Oh well.
It isn't necessarily the end of the world, but it's disappointing to see that they're already breaking the basic rule of the edition before it's even released, in order to preserve the worst design flaw in the game in the form of the mono-phase 8th edition T'au army.
How does it break a rule? The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of Overwatch says "some units will have rules that allow them to Overwatch". The Greater Good is a rule that allows some units to Overwatch (not Tau tanks for some reason, or their Auxilia). Tau also suck in melee, so having a chance to do damage in the charge phase to soften the foe before said foe punches the Tau's head off is important.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
Latro_ wrote: Any news from the twitch stream for today? missed it
Just that when they said "some units will be able to Overwatch" they apparently meant "every unit in the Tau army with The Greater Good rule".
It's to be expected though isn't it? Tau have good overwatch, it's what they do. When facing them you should expect to have to deal with it. The same strategies will still work, with possible new ones afforded by the new rules. I don't see anything stopping my warp talons from shredding them just as easily as they do now. Night Lords eat tau for breakfast, then turn what's left over into fashion accessories.
It's also, putting it lightly, fething tedious to play against.
"Oh I have a combat army... well I guess i'll just give the tau castle 2 shooting phases"
Tau castles are the least fun army you can play against in the game. They have almost zero interaction with anyone. They sit in a corner and shoot and avoid all return fire by dumping it on hidden drones.
It's not like the riptide is going to be any more fun to charge "Oh, it overwatches, and then it shoots your unit dead in its shoot phase". It's pretty damn immune to any but the most excessive melee units already.
Way harder to kill than a knight, or any super heavy.
This, flatly, sucks for the game. GW needs to find a way to make tau play well that isn't "Sit in the corner and shoot and hope that by the end the enemy army has died before its gotten enough points". It's not even fun to beat. I never feel like I've "won" because I racked up points against a tau player that only moved his models after 90 percent of my army was shot to death, and the player just couldn't make up the points difference.
I see your tau castle and I raise you a marine castle.
Like a tau castle, but all the guns shoot at full effectiveness 30" out, their to-hit rerolls aren't limited to once per game and don't require them to be stationary, and they punch more if you get them in melee than if you leave them at range.
The marine castle isn't good for the game, but mostly because GW overtuned marines and they excell way too damn hard.
an actual marine castle is far more interactive and has a lot more counter play possible.
Even if you hard nerfed tau to just be worse at doing what they do so, they'd still be the worst army in the game to play against even if you always beat them, because they don't interact meaningfully with huge chunks of the game.
A marine castle isn't virtually immune to melee and charges. It can build in a counter punch. But tau just straight ignore it because they absorb any damage through having both extremely strong and hard it injure centerpieces and the ability to shunt wounds to extremely efficient screens. Tau pretty much ignore flat out 2 phases of the game (except to throw dice), and have far less choices they have to make in what is the most important phase of the game, movement. Their only real interactions are target priority. And shooting has always been kind of the duldrums of the game where you just sit there and remove your models.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
stratigo wrote: But, again, even winning on points against the tau castle is unsatisfying. Because you "won" by dying sufficiently slowly that the tau player ran out of time to score. Not by, you know, interacting with the tau army or killing its big pieces.
I disagree. I beat a Necron army in 6th with 3 Sisters of Battle still on the table, to an army that only lose three models. That was INCREDIBLY satisfying to me.
Then again I was playing an army themed around martyrdom, so maybe my bias is showing there.
40k is a game where you'll lose models even if your winning. Winning despite the fact you lost models will always be important, and being mad that you have to outplay a static opponent feels a bit "meh".
And I know people brought up top table Tau armies, but let's be honest: most of us will never play Tau armies run that well, or that finely tuned. Heck, most of us aren't even running armies that finely tuned either. I'm not saying the potential for the army to curbstomp isn't there, but just because one person can make it do something doesn't mean it's going to be that way in everyone's hands. See: Grey Knights pre-Ritual of the Damned. They won an Australian GT, but in the hands of your average player, they still sucked.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sitting in a corner and tabling your opponent for the win doesn't win games in 9th. You have to be scoring objectives and if you're waiting until turn 5 to do so, you're going to lose.
unitl tournaments come up and add "tabling = full points win" because it would be unfair otherwise
Not Online!!! wrote: Gotta love the fact that Tau just flt ignore the overwatch limitations the second it got implemented
It's not like they were going to suddenly not suck in melee without a massive faction redesign, so this was inevitable.
Come on, Zion. You're just highlighting one of the major flaws of 40k with that argument. Melee is too binary, and that's what leads to so many issues people have with the game. Either your army is really good at it, or really bad at it. This means that the good melee armies can wipe the floor with bad melee armies if they manage to get into range, which leads GW to overcompensate by making shooting armies hyperspecialized at preventing CC armies from ever getting into contact.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
You throw things in that can survive being shot at, like a tank, and use things to turn off the primary unit's overwatch (Suppressors, strats, ect) so even if they break your transport, you can walk in unshootable anyways.
Biggest thing that people have been missing in todays article -
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot, which means you need to put extra effort into screening enemy charges and preventing your critical shooting units from being engaged in combat. Thankfully, screening is about to become much more effective.
EnTyme wrote: I hate playing against Tau for pretty much the reasons stratigo mentioned. Every other faction is playing Warhammer: 40k. Tau are playing a completely different game all together. We're all playing a strategy game, they're playing a rail shooter.
They can play one, but if they aren't trying to be mobile to cap objectives and the like, they're going to lose every game in the new edition.
Plus Crisis Suits just got nerfed by that fly change to boot.
T'au are already a very mobile faction, with excellent ability to hold the middle of the board. Look at the way Siegler plays T'au; he moves to the center of the board and forces you to stay away or else anything that comes within range and LOS just dies. Reducing the board size only buffed this. The changes to FLY and fall back barely touch T'au because if you're playing T'au and letting people get into combat with your main shooters, you've already lost. That's what all those shield drones and breachers are for.
This just encourages the T'au castle even more than it did in the past, sadly.
It's a step in the wrong direction for the faction. What T'au desperately needed was better melee capability and for more of their units to be made viable, not doubling down on the castle with drone shields strategy.
What they need is to emphasize the mobility game more and hard deamphasize drone. feth drones. Get rid of them (more meaningfully, drones need to be entirely reconceptualized away from ablative wounds into something not so detrimental to the game). Make breachers and crisis suits good. Make riptides and broadsides suck.
Heck, I'd give tau more abilities for mobility in the charge phase. Sure they can't hit for gak in combat, but they got some tricks they can pull in key moments to prevent an important wipe, or get to unexpected areas.
Not Online!!! wrote: Gotta love the fact that Tau just flt ignore the overwatch limitations the second it got implemented
It's not like they were going to suddenly not suck in melee without a massive faction redesign, so this was inevitable.
Come on, Zion. You're just highlighting one of the major flaws of 40k with that argument. Melee is too binary, and that's what leads to so many issues people have with the game. Either your army is really good at it, or really bad at it. This means that the good melee armies can wipe the floor with bad melee armies if they manage to get into range, which leads GW to overcompensate by making shooting armies hyperspecialized at preventing CC armies from ever getting into contact.
Tau is the only army that is "really bad at it". Everyone else ranges from "okay at it" to "dominates the entire enemy army if they even touch one of your units".
Look, I get that people want to doom and gloom all day, but people were making melee units work in 8th despite how much harsher it was on melee. 9th has given melee some good buffs through better terrain, smaller table spaces for ranged units to be deployed in, the ability to come in from the board edge so you can protect the units during early game and hit the flanks, ect.
Melee isn't dead. It's may not be point and click, but I'm planting my flag on the idea that it's got gas in the tank to be really effective.
Kdash wrote: Biggest thing that people have been missing in todays article -
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot, which means you need to put extra effort into screening enemy charges and preventing your critical shooting units from being engaged in combat. Thankfully, screening is about to become much more effective.
No more shooting when falling back with FLY.
The problem is that, realistically, this only hurts the suits that people are already not taking and the tanks.... people are also not taking.
A riptide DGAF.
Commanders might be effected, but commanders that get hit in combat tend to be because they were launched as a missile into the enemy's backfield, and they were dead anyways.
So since fly units can't shoot after the fall back, it seems sending flyers off the board after they get tagged in melee might be a good tactic since they can't shoot anyways.
Not Online!!! wrote: Gotta love the fact that Tau just flt ignore the overwatch limitations the second it got implemented
It's not like they were going to suddenly not suck in melee without a massive faction redesign, so this was inevitable.
Come on, Zion. You're just highlighting one of the major flaws of 40k with that argument. Melee is too binary, and that's what leads to so many issues people have with the game. Either your army is really good at it, or really bad at it. This means that the good melee armies can wipe the floor with bad melee armies if they manage to get into range, which leads GW to overcompensate by making shooting armies hyperspecialized at preventing CC armies from ever getting into contact.
Tau is the only army that is "really bad at it". Everyone else ranges from "okay at it" to "dominates the entire enemy army if they even touch one of your units".
Look, I get that people want to doom and gloom all day, but people were making melee units work in 8th despite how much harsher it was on melee. 9th has given melee some good buffs through better terrain, smaller table spaces for ranged units to be deployed in, the ability to come in from the board edge so you can protect the units during early game and hit the flanks, ect.
Melee isn't dead. It's may not be point and click, but I'm planting my flag on the idea that it's got gas in the tank to be really effective.
9th isn't less harsh, and 8th wasn't actually harsh. Melee was a very strong tool. People are down on it cause there are a lot of bad melee units and its harder to make a melee unit good than a shooting one. Shooting units just need a gun. Melee need muscle and delivery, and usually more defenses to work. But for the units that do, they are an extremely solid, and, at times, dominating, tool.
Except against tau, where you might as well not bother.
Kdash wrote: Biggest thing that people have been missing in todays article -
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot, which means you need to put extra effort into screening enemy charges and preventing your critical shooting units from being engaged in combat. Thankfully, screening is about to become much more effective.
Kdash wrote: Biggest thing that people have been missing in todays article -
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot, which means you need to put extra effort into screening enemy charges and preventing your critical shooting units from being engaged in combat. Thankfully, screening is about to become much more effective.
No more shooting when falling back with FLY.
The problem is that, realistically, this only hurts the suits that people are already not taking and the tanks.... people are also not taking.
A riptide DGAF.
Commanders might be effected, but commanders that get hit in combat tend to be because they were launched as a missile into the enemy's backfield, and they were dead anyways.
I mean, unless the riptide cares about having its target dictated (here, shoot my Trukk, Riptide!) and about having 5+ to hit.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Not Online!!! wrote: Gotta love the fact that Tau just flt ignore the overwatch limitations the second it got implemented
It's not like they were going to suddenly not suck in melee without a massive faction redesign, so this was inevitable.
Come on, Zion. You're just highlighting one of the major flaws of 40k with that argument. Melee is too binary, and that's what leads to so many issues people have with the game. Either your army is really good at it, or really bad at it. This means that the good melee armies can wipe the floor with bad melee armies if they manage to get into range, which leads GW to overcompensate by making shooting armies hyperspecialized at preventing CC armies from ever getting into contact.
Tau is the only army that is "really bad at it". Everyone else ranges from "okay at it" to "dominates the entire enemy army if they even touch one of your units".
Look, I get that people want to doom and gloom all day, but people were making melee units work in 8th despite how much harsher it was on melee. 9th has given melee some good buffs through better terrain, smaller table spaces for ranged units to be deployed in, the ability to come in from the board edge so you can protect the units during early game and hit the flanks, ect.
Melee isn't dead. It's may not be point and click, but I'm planting my flag on the idea that it's got gas in the tank to be really effective.
9th isn't less harsh, and 8th wasn't actually harsh. Melee was a very strong tool. People are down on it cause there are a lot of bad melee units and its harder to make a melee unit good than a shooting one. Shooting units just need a gun. Melee need muscle and delivery, and usually more defenses to work. But for the units that do, they are an extremely solid, and, at times, dominating, tool.
Except against tau, where you might as well not bother.
So what it sounds like your saying is that people want point and click options, and when they don't have those they're "bad".
And Marines have at least a few ways to mess with Overwatch, so I could see them having some gas to deal with Tau.
Here's to hoping GW finally fixed that drone mess though. With all the complaining they can't think that this is a better option than just letting units take a couple drones as wargear and doing it that way.
It actually affects the Riptide depending on the gun, because I'm pretty sure the Ion accelerator is going to be blast so it doesn't gets to fire in melee and even the burst cannon is going to be firing at -1 and only at whatever tied it in melee.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
Kdash wrote: Biggest thing that people have been missing in todays article -
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot, which means you need to put extra effort into screening enemy charges and preventing your critical shooting units from being engaged in combat. Thankfully, screening is about to become much more effective.
No more shooting when falling back with FLY.
This ones pretty big! Bring back tanks!
Tanks don't care as they can shoot in melee, so better stay in CC and shoot something than fall back
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
Kdash wrote: Biggest thing that people have been missing in todays article -
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot, which means you need to put extra effort into screening enemy charges and preventing your critical shooting units from being engaged in combat. Thankfully, screening is about to become much more effective.
No more shooting when falling back with FLY.
The problem is that, realistically, this only hurts the suits that people are already not taking and the tanks.... people are also not taking.
A riptide DGAF.
Commanders might be effected, but commanders that get hit in combat tend to be because they were launched as a missile into the enemy's backfield, and they were dead anyways.
I mean, unless the riptide cares about having its target dictated (here, shoot my Trukk, Riptide!) and about having 5+ to hit.
How the heck are you getting a truk into a riptide? Let's be realistic here man.
Kdash wrote: Biggest thing that people have been missing in todays article -
The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot, which means you need to put extra effort into screening enemy charges and preventing your critical shooting units from being engaged in combat. Thankfully, screening is about to become much more effective.
No more shooting when falling back with FLY.
This ones pretty big! Bring back tanks!
Tanks don't care as they can shoot in melee, so better stay in CC and shoot something than fall back
I mean REAL tanks, you know, the ones with treads. Now we might actually have a reason to take non-FLY tanks.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
T..they already said infantry take a -1 to hit when moving and shooting with heavy weapons.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
You throw things in that can survive being shot at, like a tank, and use things to turn off the primary unit's overwatch (Suppressors, strats, ect) so even if they break your transport, you can walk in unshootable anyways.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here...but have you actually played games against competitive T'au lists? Because this just doesn't work.
First of all, nobody takes suppressors, but even if they did, you can't turn off overwatch with them, because they have to destroy a model to do it, and there is no way you are ever going to destroy a model in any T'au unit that matters with drone shields taking the wounds on a 2+. The only thing this could possibly apply to is a crisis suit unit, but again, this just isn't going to work unless by some miracle you've already plinked off most of one suit's wounds and you get really lucky with one of your shots and plink off the last 2 wounds because they rolled a 1 on the saviour protocols roll.
If you charge in with a transport, they just don't shoot FTGG at it. Why on earth would they? All it'll be charging is a drone screen, and they don't care if your transport gets into contact with a drone screen; in fact, they want it to, since it takes up space that could be filled by your real melee. You do realize the can still FTGG even if you only declare a charge on a unit that's already in combat, right?
The only way to charge a T'au castle is with a unit that cannot be overwatched at. And even that will be mostly useless in 9th, thanks to the multi-charge nerf. In the past you could declare against the drones and the units being shielded behind, wipe the drones, then fight again against the primary target. In 9th, you can't do that. So you can charge their drones and wipe them...and then be unable to fight the real units you wanted to get to, so you just get blasted off the board on their turn.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
You throw things in that can survive being shot at, like a tank, and use things to turn off the primary unit's overwatch (Suppressors, strats, ect) so even if they break your transport, you can walk in unshootable anyways.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here...but have you actually played games against competitive T'au lists? Because this just doesn't work.
First of all, nobody takes suppressors, but even if they did, you can't turn off overwatch with them, because they have to destroy a model to do it, and there is no way you are ever going to destroy a model in any T'au unit that matters with drone shields taking the wounds on a 2+. The only thing this could possibly apply to is a crisis suit unit, but again, this just isn't going to work unless by some miracle you've already plinked off most of one suit's wounds and you get really lucky with one of your shots and plink off the last 2 wounds because they rolled a 1 on the saviour protocols roll.
If you charge in with a transport, they just don't shoot FTGG at it. Why on earth would they? All it'll be charging is a drone screen, and they don't care if your transport gets into contact with a drone screen; in fact, they want it to, since it takes up space that could be filled by your real melee. You do realize the can still FTGG even if you only declare a charge on a unit that's already in combat, right?
I haven't played a competetive Tau list like you described because not everyone plays against competetive boogeymen and builds to counter threats only seen at GT level tournaments.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
T..they already said infantry take a -1 to hit when moving and shooting with heavy weapons.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
You throw things in that can survive being shot at, like a tank, and use things to turn off the primary unit's overwatch (Suppressors, strats, ect) so even if they break your transport, you can walk in unshootable anyways.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here...but have you actually played games against competitive T'au lists? Because this just doesn't work.
First of all, nobody takes suppressors, but even if they did, you can't turn off overwatch with them, because they have to destroy a model to do it, and there is no way you are ever going to destroy a model in any T'au unit that matters with drone shields taking the wounds on a 2+. The only thing this could possibly apply to is a crisis suit unit, but again, this just isn't going to work unless by some miracle you've already plinked off most of one suit's wounds and you get really lucky with one of your shots and plink off the last 2 wounds because they rolled a 1 on the saviour protocols roll.
If you charge in with a transport, they just don't shoot FTGG at it. Why on earth would they? All it'll be charging is a drone screen, and they don't care if your transport gets into contact with a drone screen; in fact, they want it to, since it takes up space that could be filled by your real melee. You do realize the can still FTGG even if you only declare a charge on a unit that's already in combat, right?
I haven't played a competetive Tau list like you described because not everyone plays against competetive boogeymen and builds to counter threats only seen at GT level tournaments.
Ok, that's fine. Not everyone has to play competitively. But it does mean you're not really in a position to talk about what to do to to beat FTGG in a competitive T'au list. There is no answer except a unit that can't be overwatched, and in 9th, that doesn't work either.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
You throw things in that can survive being shot at, like a tank, and use things to turn off the primary unit's overwatch (Suppressors, strats, ect) so even if they break your transport, you can walk in unshootable anyways.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here...but have you actually played games against competitive T'au lists? Because this just doesn't work.
First of all, nobody takes suppressors, but even if they did, you can't turn off overwatch with them, because they have to destroy a model to do it, and there is no way you are ever going to destroy a model in any T'au unit that matters with drone shields taking the wounds on a 2+. The only thing this could possibly apply to is a crisis suit unit, but again, this just isn't going to work unless by some miracle you've already plinked off most of one suit's wounds and you get really lucky with one of your shots and plink off the last 2 wounds because they rolled a 1 on the saviour protocols roll.
If you charge in with a transport, they just don't shoot FTGG at it. Why on earth would they? All it'll be charging is a drone screen, and they don't care if your transport gets into contact with a drone screen; in fact, they want it to, since it takes up space that could be filled by your real melee. You do realize the can still FTGG even if you only declare a charge on a unit that's already in combat, right?
I haven't played a competetive Tau list like you described because not everyone plays against competetive boogeymen and builds to counter threats only seen at GT level tournaments.
Ok, that's fine. Not everyone has to play competitively. But it does mean you're not really in a position to talk about what to do to to beat FTGG in a competitive T'au list. There is no answer except a unit that can't be overwatched, and in 9th, that doesn't work either.
Shock and Awe allows a Black Templar unit disembarking a LRC to be unable to be Overwatched. Warp Talons Deep Striking can't be Overwatched. There are tools to negate Tau's FTGG.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And even if someone plays "competitively" doesn't mean they face the same lists that make the top tables at GTs. Let's be honest, most players can't play those lists properly anyways.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
T..they already said infantry take a -1 to hit when moving and shooting with heavy weapons.
What more do you want?
It doesn't stack you forgot.
I didn't I just don't see the issue. People *loathed* invisibility in 6th/7th, and in 8th you could put together a decent number of stacking modifiers to basically replicate it. Now that they're capping it you're upset too?
Wow, for 1CP and a 300+ point unit I can deny Overwatch!
Also Warp Talons don't make a charge from Deep Strike unless you're running that Specialist Detachment, which is already 2CP to get the keyword and Warlord Trait.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
T..they already said infantry take a -1 to hit when moving and shooting with heavy weapons.
What more do you want?
It doesn't stack you forgot.
I didn't I just don't see the issue. People *loathed* invisibility in 6th/7th, and in 8th you could put together a decent number of stacking modifiers to basically replicate it. Now that they're capping it you're upset too?
People didn't like Invisibility because you could make half the army in your death star get it and that you couldn't use Templates against it, even though that's literally the perfect target.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wow, for 1CP and a 300+ point unit I can deny Overwatch!
Also Warp Talons don't make a charge from Deep Strike unless you're running that Specialist Detachment, which is already 2CP to get the keyword and Warlord Trait.
For a guy who pirates all his GW material you sure like to act like you're really bought in and invested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wow, for 1CP and a 300+ point unit I can deny Overwatch!
Also Warp Talons don't make a charge from Deep Strike unless you're running that Specialist Detachment, which is already 2CP to get the keyword and Warlord Trait.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
T..they already said infantry take a -1 to hit when moving and shooting with heavy weapons.
What more do you want?
It doesn't stack you forgot.
I didn't I just don't see the issue. People *loathed* invisibility in 6th/7th, and in 8th you could put together a decent number of stacking modifiers to basically replicate it. Now that they're capping it you're upset too?
People didn't like Invisibility because you could make half the army in your death star get it and that you couldn't use Templates against it, even though that's literally the perfect target.
Doesn't sound that different from what they were doing in 8th.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
The problem is, in a D6 system where nothing hits on a 1+, only very few things hit on a 2+, and many of those most shooting centric armies are built around a 4+, and with generally almost no positive to-hiit modifiers in the game (for things like range, stabilization, large targets, spotting/guidance, etc), once you start stacking modifiers in there, it becomes trivial to shut down far too many armies and units and turn it into a game of fishing for 6's or being unable to do anything at all. Even a -1 to hit penalty can be enough to seriously defang many shooting armies in the current edition, a -2 is enough to make many simply non-functional and something some competitive builds already operate on as an "I-win" mechanic, while a -3 would make many literally incapable of acting entirely. GW's design space with such modifiers is extremely limited.
If the game were something more like "basic guardsmen hits on a 3+, shooting at an obscured tank behind cover with a lascannon at 19" and while moving, suffers -4 to hit from target being obscured behind cover and moving, but gets +1 for large target and another +1 for under half range, and so hits on a 5+", we'd have more space to work with and make such things useful. As we broadly don't have such modifiers however, capping modifiers at -1 is really the only way to keep from totally neutering many armies.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wow, for 1CP and a 300+ point unit I can deny Overwatch!
Also Warp Talons don't make a charge from Deep Strike unless you're running that Specialist Detachment, which is already 2CP to get the keyword and Warlord Trait.
For a guy who pirates all his GW material you sure like to act like you're really bought in and invested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wow, for 1CP and a 300+ point unit I can deny Overwatch!
Also Warp Talons don't make a charge from Deep Strike unless you're running that Specialist Detachment, which is already 2CP to get the keyword and Warlord Trait.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
T..they already said infantry take a -1 to hit when moving and shooting with heavy weapons.
What more do you want?
It doesn't stack you forgot.
I didn't I just don't see the issue. People *loathed* invisibility in 6th/7th, and in 8th you could put together a decent number of stacking modifiers to basically replicate it. Now that they're capping it you're upset too?
People didn't like Invisibility because you could make half the army in your death star get it and that you couldn't use Templates against it, even though that's literally the perfect target.
Doesn't sound that different from what they were doing in 8th.
You mean 2-3 Eldar fliers that would be hard to hit? LOLk
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also not sure what your first post has to do with anything. Either my argument is valid or it's not.
Shock and Awe allows a Black Templar unit disembarking a LRC to be unable to be Overwatched. Warp Talons Deep Striking can't be Overwatched. There are tools to negate Tau's FTGG.
There are multiple ways to make units ignore overwatch. Those are bad example because those aren't competitive, but there are ways to do it.
The issue is that in 9th that doesn't get you anywhere, because of the multi-charge nerf. All you can do in 9th is charge the screen; your charge automatically fails if you declare against the unit behind it too because there's no way to get within 1". So you can charge the drone screen...but can't get to what's behind it to fight twice, because you didn't declare against it.
So 9th took away the sole way that you could actually charge a T'au castle.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
The problem is, in a D6 system where nothing hits on a 1+, only very few things hit on a 2+, and many of those most shooting centric armies are built around a 4+, and with generally almost no positive to-hiit modifiers in the game (for things like range, stabilization, large targets, spotting/guidance, etc), once you start stacking modifiers in there, it becomes trivial to shut down far too many armies and units and turn it into a game of fishing for 6's or being unable to do anything at all. Even a -1 to hit penalty can be enough to seriously defang many shooting armies in the current edition, a -2 is enough to make many simply non-functional and something some competitive builds already operate on as an "I-win" mechanic, while a -3 would make many literally incapable of acting entirely. GW's design space with such modifiers is extremely limited.
If the game were something more like "basic guardsmen hits on a 3+, shooting at an obscured tank behind cover with a lascannon at 19" and while moving, suffers -4 to hit from target being obscured behind cover and moving, but gets +1 for large target and another +1 for under half range, and so hits on a 5+", we'd have more space to work with and make such things useful. As we broadly don't have such modifiers however, capping modifiers at -1 is really the only way to keep from totally neutering many armies.
Except that's not scaling. An Infantry with a Lascannon that moved is still hitting an Alpha Legion unit on a 5+. You have no reason NOT to move and not to shoot.
For people complaining about "deadly", they didn't realize that the edition got even more deadlier since now you're able to go after whatever you want.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
The problem is, in a D6 system where nothing hits on a 1+, only very few things hit on a 2+, and many of those most shooting centric armies are built around a 4+, and with generally almost no positive to-hiit modifiers in the game (for things like range, stabilization, large targets, spotting/guidance, etc), once you start stacking modifiers in there, it becomes trivial to shut down far too many armies and units and turn it into a game of fishing for 6's or being unable to do anything at all. Even a -1 to hit penalty can be enough to seriously defang many shooting armies in the current edition, a -2 is enough to make many simply non-functional and something some competitive builds already operate on as an "I-win" mechanic, while a -3 would make many literally incapable of acting entirely. GW's design space with such modifiers is extremely limited.
If the game were something more like "basic guardsmen hits on a 3+, shooting at an obscured tank behind cover with a lascannon at 19" and while moving, suffers -4 to hit from target being obscured behind cover and moving, but gets +1 for large target and another +1 for under half range, and so hits on a 5+", we'd have more space to work with and make such things useful. As we broadly don't have such modifiers however, capping modifiers at -1 is really the only way to keep from totally neutering many armies.
Except that's not scaling. An Infantry with a Lascannon that moved is still hitting an Alpha Legion unit on a 5+. You have no reason NOT to move and not to shoot.
In my example above? If they don't move their negative hit modifier would be lower (meant that to be -2 obscured, -2 for moving, guess I didn't spell it out), so if you don't move, the modifier would result in the infantry hitting on their base 3+. If you toss an additional -1 for Alpha Legion onto the target (always hated hit modifiers as being "sneaky", Alpha Legion shouldn't be hard to hit, it should be all about deployment/movement/tricksy arrival/command disruption/etc, but that's a whole other topic), it becomes a 6+ and 4+ respectively. However, again, as none of these other modifiers exist, and we're starting with units hitting right in the middle of the results available already (3+ or 4+ for 90% of the game's units), the cap at -1 makes sense as otherwise it's way too easy for even 2 stacked modifiers to completely shut down opposing shooting.
As is now, you still largely have no reason to not bring heavy weapons, when people leave heavy weapons off units, is generally not because of issues with hit modifiers, it's because the weapons are poorly costed or just don't function with the unit all that well to begin with, and often never face modifiers greater than -1 against most opponents anyway.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
The problem is, in a D6 system where nothing hits on a 1+, only very few things hit on a 2+, and many of those most shooting centric armies are built around a 4+, and with generally almost no positive to-hiit modifiers in the game (for things like range, stabilization, large targets, spotting/guidance, etc), once you start stacking modifiers in there, it becomes trivial to shut down far too many armies and units and turn it into a game of fishing for 6's or being unable to do anything at all. Even a -1 to hit penalty can be enough to seriously defang many shooting armies in the current edition, a -2 is enough to make many simply non-functional and something some competitive builds already operate on as an "I-win" mechanic, while a -3 would make many literally incapable of acting entirely. GW's design space with such modifiers is extremely limited.
If the game were something more like "basic guardsmen hits on a 3+, shooting at an obscured tank behind cover with a lascannon at 19" and while moving, suffers -4 to hit from target being obscured behind cover and moving, but gets +1 for large target and another +1 for under half range, and so hits on a 5+", we'd have more space to work with and make such things useful. As we broadly don't have such modifiers however, capping modifiers at -1 is really the only way to keep from totally neutering many armies.
Except that's not scaling. An Infantry with a Lascannon that moved is still hitting an Alpha Legion unit on a 5+. You have no reason NOT to move and not to shoot.
In my example above? If they don't move their negative hit modifier would be lower (meant that to be -2 obscured, -2 for moving, guess I didn't spell it out), so if you don't move, the modifier would result in the infantry hitting on their base 3+. If you toss an additional -1 for Alpha Legion onto the target (always hated hit modifiers as being "sneaky", Alpha Legion shouldn't be hard to hit, it should be all about deployment/movement/tricksy arrival/command disruption/etc, but that's a whole other topic), it becomes a 6+ and 4+ respectively. However, again, as none of these other modifiers exist, and we're starting with units hitting right in the middle of the results available already (3+ or 4+ for 90% of the game's units), the cap at -1 makes sense as otherwise it's way too easy for even 2 stacked modifiers to completely shut down opposing shooting.
I think what Slayer's getting at is that since the penalties don't stack, you might as well keep your Heavy weapons on the move if facing Alpha Legion, since you're hitting on 5+ either way.
I feel that the issue was opposing armies being able to set up permanent debuffs that offered no counterplay, rather than the existence of stacking situational debuffs. You can always choose not to move; there's nothing you can do to negate the defensive bonuses of an Alaitoc flyer.
The real problem with the -1 cap is it makes rerolls even more overpowered than they already were. There is just no way now to stop a space marine castle from hitting close to every shot. Even base infantry will hit 75% of the time against every target, no matter what.
Addressing modifiers without addressing rerolls is just madness. So of course it seems to be what GW did.
9th is shaping up to be the castle edition, even more than 8th was.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
You throw things in that can survive being shot at, like a tank, and use things to turn off the primary unit's overwatch (Suppressors, strats, ect) so even if they break your transport, you can walk in unshootable anyways.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here...but have you actually played games against competitive T'au lists? Because this just doesn't work.
First of all, nobody takes suppressors, but even if they did, you can't turn off overwatch with them, because they have to destroy a model to do it, and there is no way you are ever going to destroy a model in any T'au unit that matters with drone shields taking the wounds on a 2+. The only thing this could possibly apply to is a crisis suit unit, but again, this just isn't going to work unless by some miracle you've already plinked off most of one suit's wounds and you get really lucky with one of your shots and plink off the last 2 wounds because they rolled a 1 on the saviour protocols roll.
Not sure about the rest of it, but the statement "nobody takes suppressors" is absolutely incorrect, take the LVO for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The real problem with the -1 cap is it makes rerolls even more overpowered than they already were. There is just no way now to stop a space marine castle from hitting close to every shot. Even base infantry will hit 75% of the time against every target, no matter what.
Addressing modifiers without addressing rerolls is just madness. So of course it seems to be what GW did.
9th is shaping up to be the castle edition, even more than 8th was.
If they haven't done anything about the overwhelming reroll madness, 9th is already worse off.
Not sure about the rest of it, but the statement "nobody takes suppressors" is absolutely incorrect, take the LVO for example.
Interesting. You're right, they saw a huge increase at LVO, that's quite interesting. It'd be interesting to see the stats on how they did; neither of the SM lists that placed 1 and 2 took them.
edit: This suggests they didn't do great; they aren't on the "high win %" list, which basically means they weren't one of the units that made the difference between winning and losing SM lists.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Wow, for 1CP and a 300+ point unit I can deny Overwatch!
Also Warp Talons don't make a charge from Deep Strike unless you're running that Specialist Detachment, which is already 2CP to get the keyword and Warlord Trait.
Or you run them as Night Lords, get a 3d6 charge, turn off savior protocols with Vox Scream, and lock everything you touch in combat with We Have Come For You.
ClockworkZion wrote: Sitting in a corner and tabling your opponent for the win doesn't win games in 9th. You have to be scoring objectives and if you're waiting until turn 5 to do so, you're going to lose.
unitl tournaments come up and add "tabling = full points win" because it would be unfair otherwise
Luckily tournaments have been movrng away from that
Heck, I'd give tau more abilities for mobility in the charge phase. Sure they can't hit for gak in combat, but they got some tricks they can pull in key moments to prevent an important wipe, or get to unexpected areas.
Sorry but hard to take seriously anybody who says make x suck. You show you are no better than gw
How do you charge anything that matters? Why would you use vox scream to turn off savior protocols when all you're gonna be doing is fighting drones in the first place?
That's the basic problem with the tau castle. There is no way to get to the juicy stuff inside. You can't shoot it because of SP; you can't charge it because of the 9th edition multi-charge rules.
The new (old) T’au overwatch rule is the reason why nearly all the new marines models have storm shields or are bikers where the one guy left after overwatch has enough attacks on the one guy to wipe out a whole T’au squad or extra range multi meltas (rifles)
yukishiro1 wrote: The real problem with the -1 cap is it makes rerolls even more overpowered than they already were. There is just no way now to stop a space marine castle from hitting close to every shot. Even base infantry will hit 75% of the time against every target, no matter what.
Addressing modifiers without addressing rerolls is just madness. So of course it seems to be what GW did.
9th is shaping up to be the castle edition, even more than 8th was.
Gee. Put as playtesters who have been making tournament rules that favour marine gunlines and you get this. Who would have thought
I feel like people are ignoring that 9th is using missions that favor mobility (based on how Nova and LVO have done missions) over being static and then complaining about armies being static.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We also don't know if GW really did ignore the massed reroll issue since that's all FAQ material.
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are ignoring that 9th is using missions that favor mobility (based on how Nova and LVO have done missions) over being static and then complaining about armies being static.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We also don't know if GW really did ignore the massed reroll issue since that's all FAQ material.
T'au aren't static. This has already been pointed out several times. Watch a few games Siegler plays. Only bad T'au players sit in a corner not moving. One of the greatest strengths of the T'au castle is that it is vastly more mobile than other castles.
With the reduced board size, every objective on the table is going to be well within range of a T'au castle sitting in the middle of the table. There is no way to score points while being outside it's range.
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are ignoring that 9th is using missions that favor mobility (based on how Nova and LVO have done missions) over being static and then complaining about armies being static.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We also don't know if GW really did ignore the massed reroll issue since that's all FAQ material.
You can play mobile castles....
Good luck running up score for holding more table quarters with a castle
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: T'au aren't static. This has already been pointed out several times. Watch a few games Siegler plays. Only bad T'au players sit in a corner not moving. One of the greatest strengths of the T'au castle is that it is vastly more mobile than other castles.
With the reduced board size, every objective on the table is going to be well within range of a T'au castle sitting in the middle of the table. There is no way to score points while being outside it's range.
Siegler is an exception not the rule. Stop defining armies by the way top table players run them. Your average player either doesn't have the same list, or can't run it half as effectively.
yukishiro1 wrote: How do you charge anything that matters? Why would you use vox scream to turn off savior protocols when all you're gonna be doing is fighting drones in the first place?
That's the basic problem with the tau castle. There is no way to get to the juicy stuff inside. You can't shoot it because of SP; you can't charge it because of the 9th edition multi-charge rules.
You use Vox Scream to turn off savior protocols on the drones protecting the riptides so your big guns can knock them out. The warp talons are there to lock everything up you can so they can't shoot and the rest of your army can get in the next turn.
Kanluwen wrote: And now he's an old geezer running around with a power klaw chasing after a wacky Ork Warboss and his Waagh!...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
He's been Ghaz's tactical whetstone at least. I mean he can't fight Ghaz physically, but tactically he's pushed Ghaz and contributed to making the Beast of Armageddon even more dangerous for everyone else.
Ghaz best him and decided not to kill him because he enjoyed fighting him... that’s isn’t exactly mean he’s ghaz tactical whetstone..
Ghaz lost to him once, then came back sharper and beat him (only to get countered with massed Astartes).
He didn’t quite lose to him.. it was just an endless grind that was no longer fun...
Then second time beat him, let him live and a bunch of Astartes ruined his fun.
Orks like to kick but and win they get bored quickly when the fighting slows down even if they could tactically win by dragging out the fight.
In each case of armeggedon ghaz was like I’m done here. Left some peon warboss to continue the battle and ghaz went looking for more boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
There are always exceptions... I can’t beleive they will allow heavy weapons to move and shoot without additional penalties.
T..they already said infantry take a -1 to hit when moving and shooting with heavy weapons.
What more do you want?
We want the -1 to hit modifier for moving heavy weapons to stack. Otherwise as much as the -1 hit modifier has been handed out it becomes mostly pointless reason to not move heavy weapons.
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are ignoring that 9th is using missions that favor mobility (based on how Nova and LVO have done missions) over being static and then complaining about armies being static.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We also don't know if GW really did ignore the massed reroll issue since that's all FAQ material.
You can play mobile castles....
Good luck running up score for holding more table quarters with a castle
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: T'au aren't static. This has already been pointed out several times. Watch a few games Siegler plays. Only bad T'au players sit in a corner not moving. One of the greatest strengths of the T'au castle is that it is vastly more mobile than other castles.
With the reduced board size, every objective on the table is going to be well within range of a T'au castle sitting in the middle of the table. There is no way to score points while being outside it's range.
Siegler is an exception not the rule. Stop defining armies by the way top table players run them. Your average player either doesn't have the same list, or can't run it half as effectively.
Mate. I'm not trying to be mean here, but what you're saying just isn't correct, and the fact that you've never played a competitive T'au list is really showing.
T'au take the middle and wipe anything that comes within range. That's how they play. If you hold the middle you're in a position to control who holds more. You don't have to be Siegler to know how to basically play the faction in a competent way. What Siegler does better than everybody else is the little stuff, not the big stuff.
You have to define armies by the way top table players run them. If balance isn't based on competitive play it creates a disaster.
So presumably you will only ever get a -1 to hit a flyer now? So there is no reason not to chase it with those lascannon devs up the board! There will only be a -1 penalty for moving
No wolves on Fenris wrote: So presumably you will only ever get a -1 to hit a flyer now? So there is no reason not to chase it with those lascannon devs up the board! There will only be a -1 penalty for moving
Yep, and they'll always hit 75% of the time no matter what if they have a reroll bubble.
9th is going to be even deadlier than 8th for anything in LOS of anything else.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The cap of -1 to hit is stupid. You have no point in not bringing Heavy weapons.
The problem is, in a D6 system where nothing hits on a 1+, only very few things hit on a 2+, and many of those most shooting centric armies are built around a 4+, and with generally almost no positive to-hiit modifiers in the game (for things like range, stabilization, large targets, spotting/guidance, etc), once you start stacking modifiers in there, it becomes trivial to shut down far too many armies and units and turn it into a game of fishing for 6's or being unable to do anything at all. Even a -1 to hit penalty can be enough to seriously defang many shooting armies in the current edition, a -2 is enough to make many simply non-functional and something some competitive builds already operate on as an "I-win" mechanic, while a -3 would make many literally incapable of acting entirely. GW's design space with such modifiers is extremely limited.
If the game were something more like "basic guardsmen hits on a 3+, shooting at an obscured tank behind cover with a lascannon at 19" and while moving, suffers -4 to hit from target being obscured behind cover and moving, but gets +1 for large target and another +1 for under half range, and so hits on a 5+", we'd have more space to work with and make such things useful. As we broadly don't have such modifiers however, capping modifiers at -1 is really the only way to keep from totally neutering many armies.
Except that's not scaling. An Infantry with a Lascannon that moved is still hitting an Alpha Legion unit on a 5+. You have no reason NOT to move and not to shoot.
In my example above? If they don't move their negative hit modifier would be lower (meant that to be -2 obscured, -2 for moving, guess I didn't spell it out), so if you don't move, the modifier would result in the infantry hitting on their base 3+. If you toss an additional -1 for Alpha Legion onto the target (always hated hit modifiers as being "sneaky", Alpha Legion shouldn't be hard to hit, it should be all about deployment/movement/tricksy arrival/command disruption/etc, but that's a whole other topic), it becomes a 6+ and 4+ respectively. However, again, as none of these other modifiers exist, and we're starting with units hitting right in the middle of the results available already (3+ or 4+ for 90% of the game's units), the cap at -1 makes sense as otherwise it's way too easy for even 2 stacked modifiers to completely shut down opposing shooting.
As is now, you still largely have no reason to not bring heavy weapons, when people leave heavy weapons off units, is generally not because of issues with hit modifiers, it's because the weapons are poorly costed or just don't function with the unit all that well to begin with, and often never face modifiers greater than -1 against most opponents anyway.
Which equates a deadlier game with no need to try and counter play. In 8th, if your Devastator Plasma Cannon needed to move and you had two targets, an Eldar flier with -3 to hit already next to you with 3 wounds left, and a Wave Serpent that is just now in range, you might not choose to move so you can have a better chance to kill the flier, ergo you actually have a choice to make. Under 9th, you have literally no reason not to move and get a chance to kill the Flier and knock a couple of wounds off the Serpent. You have no reason to not just move with your Heavy Weapons against Stygies, Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, etc, which means you miss the point of Heavy Weapons: moving them should be an actual consequence and now it really isn't against several armies and units.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: So presumably you will only ever get a -1 to hit a flyer now? So there is no reason not to chase it with those lascannon devs up the board! There will only be a -1 penalty for moving
Yep, and they'll always hit 75% of the time no matter what if they have a reroll bubble.
9th is going to be even deadlier than 8th for anything in LOS of anything else.
If anything this kills the idea of MSU melee units in TAC lists as you need to be able to weather Overwatch. Additionally, it means Overwatch denial options are still very important as well.
No, it promotes the opposite. The way you beat FTGG if you don't have overwatch suppression is to use a MSU unit to force them to waste FTGG to wipe it, then charge with a second unit that can't be overwatched except by the primary thing you're charging. It is essentially impossible to "weather" FTGG; whatever you charge with first is going to die, unless they make the cardinal mistake of splitting fire and don't commit enough units to wipe the first charger.
You throw things in that can survive being shot at, like a tank, and use things to turn off the primary unit's overwatch (Suppressors, strats, ect) so even if they break your transport, you can walk in unshootable anyways.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here...but have you actually played games against competitive T'au lists? Because this just doesn't work.
First of all, nobody takes suppressors, but even if they did, you can't turn off overwatch with them, because they have to destroy a model to do it, and there is no way you are ever going to destroy a model in any T'au unit that matters with drone shields taking the wounds on a 2+. The only thing this could possibly apply to is a crisis suit unit, but again, this just isn't going to work unless by some miracle you've already plinked off most of one suit's wounds and you get really lucky with one of your shots and plink off the last 2 wounds because they rolled a 1 on the saviour protocols roll.
If you charge in with a transport, they just don't shoot FTGG at it. Why on earth would they? All it'll be charging is a drone screen, and they don't care if your transport gets into contact with a drone screen; in fact, they want it to, since it takes up space that could be filled by your real melee. You do realize the can still FTGG even if you only declare a charge on a unit that's already in combat, right?
I haven't played a competetive Tau list like you described because not everyone plays against competetive boogeymen and builds to counter threats only seen at GT level tournaments.
Ok, that's fine. Not everyone has to play competitively. But it does mean you're not really in a position to talk about what to do to to beat FTGG in a competitive T'au list. There is no answer except a unit that can't be overwatched, and in 9th, that doesn't work either.
Shock and Awe allows a Black Templar unit disembarking a LRC to be unable to be Overwatched. Warp Talons Deep Striking can't be Overwatched. There are tools to negate Tau's FTGG.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And even if someone plays "competitively" doesn't mean they face the same lists that make the top tables at GTs. Let's be honest, most players can't play those lists properly anyways.
But they'll still play that list. And the issue isn't "it's too good" or "it's not good enough". The problem with competitive tau isn't its quality. It's how it interacts with the mechanics of the game. And a bad player taking a top tau list for a spin and still losing because he can't manage target priorities, or he doesn't know when to switch from ruining the opponent's list to actually scoring objectives doesn't make the play experience any better. The way tau play when you combine their best options is all sorts of awful and unfun and GW needs to also make it bad so people stop playing that way period and then they need to make other ways to play good so that tau players aren't just fethed.
Yeah. Even Siegler agrees that SP and FTGG should get nerfed in return for improving T'au in other ways. The non-interactive nature of the faction just doesn't make for fun games.
So, how are the new strategic reserve working; does it function so that I can deploy half of my force in deep strike reserve (1k points worth terminators), and other half into new strategic reserve (assuming that I have enough cp)?
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are ignoring that 9th is using missions that favor mobility (based on how Nova and LVO have done missions) over being static and then complaining about armies being static.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We also don't know if GW really did ignore the massed reroll issue since that's all FAQ material.
You can play mobile castles....
Good luck running up score for holding more table quarters with a castle
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: T'au aren't static. This has already been pointed out several times. Watch a few games Siegler plays. Only bad T'au players sit in a corner not moving. One of the greatest strengths of the T'au castle is that it is vastly more mobile than other castles.
With the reduced board size, every objective on the table is going to be well within range of a T'au castle sitting in the middle of the table. There is no way to score points while being outside it's range.
Siegler is an exception not the rule. Stop defining armies by the way top table players run them. Your average player either doesn't have the same list, or can't run it half as effectively.
For a guy that bangs on his drum none stop about the big picture you seem to be willfully ignorant of the new reserves
It is laughably easy to take all four corners of the table with any castle now. You just walk on the table with any unit from turn 2-3.
And the entire premise that tau castles or play style means they are trapped into the corner is false. It isn't unfair to use a known example to highlight the upper end of possibility. Especially when it directly contradicts your claim.
Further more, the new missions seem to be direct ripoffs of the ITC/NOVA mission pack which do anything but promote mobility. You just choose late game scoring and killpoint conditions and table the other guy. There is a reason why gunlines run rampant in those formats. If anything the new missions make it worse, especially with a smaller table but similar distance between armies, because now gunlines will be that much harder to outrange and easier to screen. Which as others have already demonstrated the new charge rules make screening even easier.
The Tau overwatch exception was not only stupid, but a massive step back. All they had to do was give them access to the overwatch strat for 0CP and leave greater good so they can lend support. Whats moronic is that a single Y'Vara can shoot infinite volleys into oncoming chargers. So even if I charge the fether with 10 5 man berserker units, he can easily kill all 50. Something impossible in his own turn. Unlimited OW is sloppy and a "feels bad" mechanic.
Lastly, this whole idea that T'au require OW or that it's "their thing" is wrong. For one, they never had it until OW in general was reintroduced in 6th. And further more sucking at melee is not a good argument for them to have it. Melee sucks at melee lol. It really not much of a sacrifice, forfeiting a broken core mechanic to double up on the better one. For them to miss out, melee would have to work to begin with and even then they already fixed much of the issues with tarpiting. For one they have desperate breakout. For another they can now nuke you in combat with riptides. Riptides ALREADY were used offensively to tarpit. Now there is almost no reason to not charge them into anyone they can grab each turn. Especially enemy infantry who can't fire into combat or fall back and shoot even with fly. It just protects the riptides that much more OR forces attacks in melee into them where they can funel them into drones.
I can't wait for every army to get an exception to the new OW rules, despite GW themselves acknowledging it is a poor mechanic and a time sink.
yukishiro1 wrote: They haven't said yet. I kinda assume that anything in strategic reserves will count towards the 50% reserves limit.
But that isn't a real big deal is it?
I can get 9 power level ~180pts of cheap objective grabbers for only a single CP. Which, is more then enough for a few cheap troops. Even if a tau FW jumps to 9ppm thats four 5 man units for exactly 180. Thats 2 teams turn 2, 2 more turn 3 to run into the other quads.
So the premise that castles can't score is wrong.
Basically GW brought back the 5th edition "grot squad" everyone would toss into lists.
Mate. I'm not trying to be mean here, but what you're saying just isn't correct, and the fact that you've never played a competitive T'au list is really showing.
T'au take the middle and wipe anything that comes within range. That's how they play. If you hold the middle you're in a position to control who holds more. You don't have to be Siegler to know how to basically play the faction in a competent way. What Siegler does better than everybody else is the little stuff, not the big stuff.
You have to define armies by the way top table players run them. If balance isn't based on competitive play it creates a disaster.
I haven't played an ITC, ETC/WTC, or Nova list, sure. But I have played against competetive Tau. Even outside of that there exists a massive group of players who don't play the "competetive" list you claim defines Tau as an army.
My point is you can't define an army off of a small data subset because most players either don't play that army or can't play that army effectively. Defining Tau by that single metric and then shutting down discussion regarding all other varieties of Tau is reductive to both the nature of the army as a whole and the actual discussion.
Like I pointed out earlier with the Grey Knights: just because one person can top table (or even win a GT) with an army doesn't change that army in the hands of the wider community. Stop defining armies by the exception.
Most players define Tau as a static gunline because modt players only see static gunline Tau. Pretending that Seigler's mobile list that locks down the table center is the norm ignores that for the sake of going "See!? Tau will break the game!"
One thought that crosses my mind as a general counter play strategy is the secondary for holding table quarters. It seems like a good counter play to a center table castle. Stay out of Line of Sight, claim all four corners because the opponent is clustered in the middle and run up your points every turn.
One thought that crosses my mind as a general counter play strategy is the secondary for holding table quarters. It seems like a good counter play to a center table castle. Stay out of Line of Sight, claim all four corners because the opponent is clustered in the middle and run up your points every turn.
Don't think that would work well in the 4 Pillars mission, which is the only one we've seen so far. You'd get a max 15VP for the quadrants secondary, meanwhile your opponent would get 45VP for the primaries which are all near~ish the centre and another 15VP from the holding the centre secondary.
One thought that crosses my mind as a general counter play strategy is the secondary for holding table quarters. It seems like a good counter play to a center table castle. Stay out of Line of Sight, claim all four corners because the opponent is clustered in the middle and run up your points every turn.
Don't think that would work well in the 4 Pillars mission, which is the only one we've seen so far. You'd get a max 15VP for the quadrants secondary, meanwhile your opponent would get 45VP for the primaries which are all near~ish the centre and another 15VP from the holding the centre secondary.
4 Pillars is a mission for 500 point games. And those pillars are 12" from the center.
If they are going to force a playstyle where wiping out as much of the opponent’s army as possible isn’t the singular highest priority anymore, then I hope they at the very least make the imposed objectives not feel as arbitrary and meaningless as the random tactical objectives of previous editions.
Which equates a deadlier game with no need to try and counter play. In 8th, if your Devastator Plasma Cannon needed to move and you had two targets, an Eldar flier with -3 to hit already next to you with 3 wounds left, and a Wave Serpent that is just now in range, you might not choose to move so you can have a better chance to kill the flier, ergo you actually have a choice to make. Under 9th, you have literally no reason not to move and get a chance to kill the Flier and knock a couple of wounds off the Serpent. You have no reason to not just move with your Heavy Weapons against Stygies, Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, etc, which means you miss the point of Heavy Weapons: moving them should be an actual consequence and now it really isn't against several armies and units.
Sure, and I would agree there in that sense, but we can have the same problem just in different ways, If you're BS4+ instead of 3+ you already really don't have a choice as you literally cannot hit the Eldar flier for instance. Trying to make it scaleable within a D6 design space, where the starting point for a base hit probability is broadly right in the middle of the range, it's way too easy for a couple modifiers to have a dramatically outsized impact. Unless GW want to start increasing everyone's base to-hit rolls to give more room for granularity, this is GW's EZ solution to the problem of people not wanting to play games where they literally can't hit their opponents and not wanting it to be "fishing for sixes". It's not an elegant solution, but when tactical granularity is too coarse for how people want the game to play and nobody wants to adjust the stats to address it, there's only so much one can do.
But the way Siegler plays is the way every T'au player of basic competency plays. Tau are short range - you'd have to have a very poor understanding of the faction to think sitting back in a corner and shooting was a good idea.
What Siegler does better than everybody is the details, not the big picture. Everyone who plays T'au competitively plays by moving to the center of the board and controlling it.
Holding table quarters doesn't work. You don't get enough points from secondaries, if you're losing the primary every turn you're losing the game every time. And with the new table size, the T'au castle can hit essentially every point on the board from the center that isn't blocked by LOS, as well as having decent non-LOS capability as well.
I'm not saying T'au are going to be unbeatable or anything in 9th, but your suggestions for how to deal with them simply don't work against a competent player. Unless there are some big, big reveals about the way combat works in 9th, the only way to fight a T'au castle is going to be the same non-interactive style you had in 8th where you slowly feed your units to the castle in order to hold more and hope to run down the clock.
Which equates a deadlier game with no need to try and counter play. In 8th, if your Devastator Plasma Cannon needed to move and you had two targets, an Eldar flier with -3 to hit already next to you with 3 wounds left, and a Wave Serpent that is just now in range, you might not choose to move so you can have a better chance to kill the flier, ergo you actually have a choice to make. Under 9th, you have literally no reason not to move and get a chance to kill the Flier and knock a couple of wounds off the Serpent. You have no reason to not just move with your Heavy Weapons against Stygies, Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, etc, which means you miss the point of Heavy Weapons: moving them should be an actual consequence and now it really isn't against several armies and units.
Sure, and I would agree there in that sense, but we can have the same problem just in different ways, If you're BS4+ instead of 3+ you already really don't have a choice as you literally cannot hit the Eldar flier for instance. Trying to make it scaleable within a D6 design space, where the starting point for a base hit probability is broadly right in the middle of the range, it's way too easy for a couple modifiers to have a dramatically outsized impact. Unless GW want to start increasing everyone's base to-hit rolls to give more room for granularity, this is GW's EZ solution to the problem of people not wanting to play games where they literally can't hit their opponents and not wanting it to be "fishing for sixes". It's not an elegant solution, but when tactical granularity is too coarse for how people want the game to play and nobody wants to adjust the stats to address it, there's only so much one can do.
Which basically translates to "we don't want to think about it".
Tri-riptide drone spam is not even competitive agaisnt possesed bombs, grey knights paladins, tzeentch daemon prince mortal wound bombs, or space marines with centurions and aggressors that eat drones for breakfast.
Pure commander and hammerhead lists (With 8 hammerheads, literally full tanks), piranha spam with seeker missiles, broadsides and stormsurges, etc... all have seen play and victories, and are right now much better at playing the objetives than tau-castle.
I don't know what kind of lists will see play now that CA and WTC will be basically ITC 2.0. But the "tau meta" is much different in WTC and CA than on ITC.
The only thing I know is that anti-tau tears taste glorious. They taste as good as tau-player tears when those players disregard all the codex as uncompetitive unless they are a drone or a riptide.
I would very much like you to be right re: other T'au lists being viable in 9th, especially if combined with a nerf to drone spam. Though right now it looks like drone spam is stronger than ever, given that the multi-charge change removed one of the main weaknesses.
yukishiro1 wrote: I would very much like you to be right re: other T'au lists being viable in 9th, especially if combined with a nerf to drone spam. Though right now it looks like drone spam is stronger than ever, given that the multi-charge change removed one of the main weaknesses.
I see this get posted occasionally in different groups, but it doesn't really reflect how tau are played. Most riptide/drone spam lists have the drones out of LOS to prevent a player shooting the much easier to wound drones. Often this also means the first charge target is the riptide and not the drones.
From the same tau leak today we saw the fly doesn't automatically let you shoot when you fall back, which if that also effects vehicles and monsters is a large change towards weakening taus defense against assault.
Quick rules question because I'm genuinely curious. And I have a point to make as well.
Does FTGG kick in if a Tau unit cannot fire OW due to an enemy unit's ability?
Daemons and Inquisitors can shut down OW so if FTGG doesn't take place than Tau castles aren't all that scary.
Not to mention it's too early to state that Tau will be able to play missions like they do now because we don't know all of the missions provided by GW, and all future 9th ed missions to come.
I love the exclamation that "anyone can play a net 40k list as well as the best player in the world". It reminds me of MtG. I so often see people copy a deck off the web that was used by a tournament winner, spend huge money on the cards and then get their asses handed to them by a person with a starter deck.
Having the tools to win a game doesn't mean you will win, you have to know how to use that tool.
Competent =/= master. Bobby Fisher was the greatest chess player in the world for a while but he wasn't the ONLY competent one. The 2nd and 3rd and maybe even the 100th greatest players in the world at that time would be considered by the world at large as "competent'.
yukishiro1 wrote: I would very much like you to be right re: other T'au lists being viable in 9th, especially if combined with a nerf to drone spam. Though right now it looks like drone spam is stronger than ever, given that the multi-charge change removed one of the main weaknesses.
I see this get posted occasionally in different groups, but it doesn't really reflect how tau are played. Most riptide/drone spam lists have the drones out of LOS to prevent a player shooting the much easier to wound drones. Often this also means the first charge target is the riptide and not the drones.
From the same tau leak today we saw the fly doesn't automatically let you shoot when you fall back, which if that also effects vehicles and monsters is a large change towards weakening taus defense against assault.
That is true for list of 20-30 shield drones. But when you bring 50 + you don’t hide them anymore
yukishiro1 wrote: I would very much like you to be right re: other T'au lists being viable in 9th, especially if combined with a nerf to drone spam. Though right now it looks like drone spam is stronger than ever, given that the multi-charge change removed one of the main weaknesses.
I see this get posted occasionally in different groups, but it doesn't really reflect how tau are played. Most riptide/drone spam lists have the drones out of LOS to prevent a player shooting the much easier to wound drones. Often this also means the first charge target is the riptide and not the drones.
From the same tau leak today we saw the fly doesn't automatically let you shoot when you fall back, which if that also effects vehicles and monsters is a large change towards weakening taus defense against assault.
Why would you be putting drones out of LOS and exposing your riptide against a melee army? That seems like a really basic mistake to make. Half the value of the drones is their strength as a screen.
Of course we still don't know how the Fall Back rule works, so this talk of Fly units not being able to shoot, whilst nice, doesn't change the fact that if Fall Back remains as is it's still a major problem for assault armies.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Doesnt that like completely remove the entire purpose of the Inceptors in the Deathwatch? Or ya know their whole purpose in general?
I'd rather one unit lose its functionality (that can be rewritten) than Fly + Fall Back remain as it is.
Kanluwen wrote: ...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Of course we still don't know how the Fall Back rule works, so this talk of Fly units not being able to shoot, whilst nice, doesn't change the fact that if Fall Back remains as is it's still a major problem for assault armies.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Doesnt that like completely remove the entire purpose of the Inceptors in the Deathwatch? Or ya know their whole purpose in general?
I'd rather one unit lose its functionality (that can be rewritten) than Fly + Fall Back remain as it is.
Kanluwen wrote: ...he's not really "embodying" anything other than an old guy trying to keep others from having fun.
*snickers*
Fair enough. Im sure something will be done. They wouldnt over look something when it comes to the Deathwatch would they?
jivardi wrote: Quick rules question because I'm genuinely curious. And I have a point to make as well.
Does FTGG kick in if a Tau unit cannot fire OW due to an enemy unit's ability?
Daemons and Inquisitors can shut down OW so if FTGG doesn't take place than Tau castles aren't all that scary.
Not to mention it's too early to state that Tau will be able to play missions like they do now because we don't know all of the missions provided by GW, and all future 9th ed missions to come.
I love the exclamation that "anyone can play a net 40k list as well as the best player in the world". It reminds me of MtG. I so often see people copy a deck off the web that was used by a tournament winner, spend huge money on the cards and then get their asses handed to them by a person with a starter deck.
Having the tools to win a game doesn't mean you will win, you have to know how to use that tool.
Competent =/= master. Bobby Fisher was the greatest chess player in the world for a while but he wasn't the ONLY competent one. The 2nd and 3rd and maybe even the 100th greatest players in the world at that time would be considered by the world at large as "competent'.
Agreed. And that's one problem with netlists that people who use them don't really get, it seems. Oftentimes, I find that people who have played an army for a while will play it better, even if it's not optimized, versus someone who has a netlist who doesn't know all of the intracacies of it. A master of a less-optimized list can beat a competent netlister because of experience and understanding what each and every one of their units do.
jivardi wrote: Quick rules question because I'm genuinely curious. And I have a point to make as well.
Does FTGG kick in if a Tau unit cannot fire OW due to an enemy unit's ability?
Daemons and Inquisitors can shut down OW so if FTGG doesn't take place than Tau castles aren't all that scary.
Not to mention it's too early to state that Tau will be able to play missions like they do now because we don't know all of the missions provided by GW, and all future 9th ed missions to come.
I love the exclamation that "anyone can play a net 40k list as well as the best player in the world". It reminds me of MtG. I so often see people copy a deck off the web that was used by a tournament winner, spend huge money on the cards and then get their asses handed to them by a person with a starter deck.
Having the tools to win a game doesn't mean you will win, you have to know how to use that tool.
Competent =/= master. Bobby Fisher was the greatest chess player in the world for a while but he wasn't the ONLY competent one. The 2nd and 3rd and maybe even the 100th greatest players in the world at that time would be considered by the world at large as "competent'.
Agreed. And that's one problem with netlists that people who use them don't really get, it seems. Oftentimes, I find that people who have played an army for a while will play it better, even if it's not optimized, versus someone who has a netlist who doesn't know all of the intracacies of it. A master of a less-optimized list can beat a competent netlister because of experience and understanding what each and every one of their units do.
Which only reinforces my point: no army can be defined by how it plays at top tables alone, and making sweeping statements about how "competent" list building works is laughable.
There is more than one way to skin a Gyrinx after all.
It's why only balancing based on what is seen at high level play doesn't work. It fails to identify the things that aren't working, or the things that work in other metas outsode of something like LVO.
yukishiro1 wrote: But the way Siegler plays is the way every T'au player of basic competency plays. Tau are short range - you'd have to have a very poor understanding of the faction to think sitting back in a corner and shooting was a good idea.
What Siegler does better than everybody is the details, not the big picture. Everyone who plays T'au competitively plays by moving to the center of the board and controlling it.
Holding table quarters doesn't work. You don't get enough points from secondaries, if you're losing the primary every turn you're losing the game every time. And with the new table size, the T'au castle can hit essentially every point on the board from the center that isn't blocked by LOS, as well as having decent non-LOS capability as well.
I'm not saying T'au are going to be unbeatable or anything in 9th, but your suggestions for how to deal with them simply don't work against a competent player. Unless there are some big, big reveals about the way combat works in 9th, the only way to fight a T'au castle is going to be the same non-interactive style you had in 8th where you slowly feed your units to the castle in order to hold more and hope to run down the clock.
Tau are not remotely short range. All the parts of a tau castle are long range. Heck you easily get 18 plus rapid fire pulse carbines. Riptides aren't short range. Pulse rifles aren't. Broadsides (when they are in vogue) aren't. Commanders aren't in any real way when you can move one 20 inches.
Tau move to the middle of the board to lock the board down and play keep away from objectives. If you stay in the corner shooting, the a tarpit army can aggress and lock you into that corner to prevent you from scoring. Going midfield allows your to squat your castle on where objective tend to be concentrated. The castle is not and was never a short range list. By this metric, space marines are short range.
jivardi wrote: Quick rules question because I'm genuinely curious. And I have a point to make as well.
Does FTGG kick in if a Tau unit cannot fire OW due to an enemy unit's ability?
Daemons and Inquisitors can shut down OW so if FTGG doesn't take place than Tau castles aren't all that scary.
Not to mention it's too early to state that Tau will be able to play missions like they do now because we don't know all of the missions provided by GW, and all future 9th ed missions to come.
I love the exclamation that "anyone can play a net 40k list as well as the best player in the world". It reminds me of MtG. I so often see people copy a deck off the web that was used by a tournament winner, spend huge money on the cards and then get their asses handed to them by a person with a starter deck.
Having the tools to win a game doesn't mean you will win, you have to know how to use that tool.
Competent =/= master. Bobby Fisher was the greatest chess player in the world for a while but he wasn't the ONLY competent one. The 2nd and 3rd and maybe even the 100th greatest players in the world at that time would be considered by the world at large as "competent'.
Agreed. And that's one problem with netlists that people who use them don't really get, it seems. Oftentimes, I find that people who have played an army for a while will play it better, even if it's not optimized, versus someone who has a netlist who doesn't know all of the intracacies of it. A master of a less-optimized list can beat a competent netlister because of experience and understanding what each and every one of their units do.
Which only reinforces my point: no army can be defined by how it plays at top tables alone, and making sweeping statements about how "competent" list building works is laughable.
There is more than one way to skin a Gyrinx after all.
It's why only balancing based on what is seen at high level play doesn't work. It fails to identify the things that aren't working, or the things that work in other metas outsode of something like LVO.
I don't know how or why you seem to aggressively miss the point really. It's like you hear the word competitive and you shut literally everything else about an argument out.
The problem with competitive tau ISN'T THAT THEY ARE COMPETITIVE! Get it? Got it? Understand?
It's that competitive tau play in a non interactive way and provide poor game experiences for opponents and the players of the army itself. GW shouldn't make an army that can realistically play in this manner, it is bad for the game. Get it?
What people want is for tau to have a playstyle that is good that ISN'T reliant on avoiding interacting with the opponents army and entire phases of the game. This would be nothing but a boon for the game and for tau players.
Tau are short range. Arguing anything else is insanity. I regularly outranged the entire Tau alpha strike in majors and the ETC tournaments in 8th. The 9th edition small board will do wonders in adressing that issue, but I feel their competitiveness will still come down to the points cost lottery like everyone else.
In fact, outside a very specific tournament rule set and more importantly the tournament meta where others brought lascannons (instead of Invictors and Impulsors and max indirect) and then ran into shield drones, and a specific player, Tau really weren’t competitive at all in 8th. Barely a top 8 faction in the game.
Therion wrote: Tau are short range. Arguing anything else is insanity. I regularly outranged the entire Tau alpha strike in majors and the ETC tournaments. The 9th edition small board will do wonders in adressing that issue, but I feel their competitiveness will still come down to the points cost lottery like everyone else.
I don't see how an army whose threat range revolves around 36 inches is in any way short.
Therion wrote: Tau are short range. Arguing anything else is insanity. I regularly outranged the entire Tau alpha strike in majors and the ETC tournaments. The 9th edition small board will do wonders in adressing that issue, but I feel their competitiveness will still come down to the points cost lottery like everyone else.
I don't see how an army whose threat range revolves around 36 inches is in any way short.
But it is. In three of the deployments you can outrange their entire army, and in the rest you can choose what gets shot, and even that gets shot from movement / mont’ka and not kayuon.
Therion wrote: Tau are short range. Arguing anything else is insanity. I regularly outranged the entire Tau alpha strike in majors and the ETC tournaments. The 9th edition small board will do wonders in adressing that issue, but I feel their competitiveness will still come down to the points cost lottery like everyone else.
I don't see how an army whose threat range revolves around 36 inches is in any way short.
But it is. In three of the deployments you can outrange their entire army, and in the rest you can choose what gets shot, and even that gets shot from movement / mont’ka and not kayuon.
It's a mid range shooting army, a short range shooting army would be Necrons who need to get within 24" for most of their weapons (not including DDA's obviously) and Drukhari, who need to be within 18" or less for their poison shooting to be effective.
Therion wrote: Tau are short range. Arguing anything else is insanity. I regularly outranged the entire Tau alpha strike in majors and the ETC tournaments. The 9th edition small board will do wonders in adressing that issue, but I feel their competitiveness will still come down to the points cost lottery like everyone else.
I don't see how an army whose threat range revolves around 36 inches is in any way short.
But it is. In three of the deployments you can outrange their entire army, and in the rest you can choose what gets shot, and even that gets shot from movement / mont’ka and not kayuon.
It's a mid range shooting army, a short range shooting army would be Necrons who need to get within 24" for most of their weapons (not including DDA's obviously) and Drukhari, who need to be within 18" or less for their poison shooting to be effective.
Well that’s semantics. I call any army that can have it’s 1a opener neutered by redline deployments a short range army.
The problem with competitive tau ISN'T THAT THEY ARE COMPETITIVE! Get it? Got it? Understand?
It's that competitive tau play in a non interactive way and provide poor game experiences for opponents and the players of the army itself. GW shouldn't make an army that can realistically play in this manner, it is bad for the game. Get it?
What people want is for tau to have a playstyle that is good that ISN'T reliant on avoiding interacting with the opponents army and entire phases of the game. This would be nothing but a boon for the game and for tau players.
Your opinion. Some could say t1 charges you can't prevent at all is boring uninteracting game. Are you advocating removing them?
A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
Got ya sorted:
Spoiler:
there's a wealth of info our there from GW, just need to google it.
I don't know how or why you seem to aggressively miss the point really. It's like you hear the word competitive and you shut literally everything else about an argument out.
The problem with competitive tau ISN'T THAT THEY ARE COMPETITIVE! Get it? Got it? Understand?
It's that competitive tau play in a non interactive way and provide poor game experiences for opponents and the players of the army itself. GW shouldn't make an army that can realistically play in this manner, it is bad for the game. Get it?
What people want is for tau to have a playstyle that is good that ISN'T reliant on avoiding interacting with the opponents army and entire phases of the game. This would be nothing but a boon for the game and for tau players.
I never said Tau being competetive was an issue. My issue was the claim that Tau could only be played one way (Seigler's list) and that there is no chance of counter play to Tau.
Honestly I get that people are concerned that Tau will remain castled up but with the sweeping points changes, erratas, and everything else we don't know up in the air I can't claim an army's future playstyle will match its current one.
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
We haven't seen anything matched-play or organised-event-play specific yet for 9th.
But I'd guess it will almost certainly remain in place for organised-event play and might even be upgraded to an actual matched-play rule, given that how most people view/play the rule-of-3 in 8th.
Your opinion. Some could say t1 charges you can't prevent at all is boring uninteracting game. Are you advocating removing them?
I think GW likely has killed the alpha strike melee unit build with how you can't tripoint a single unit anymore, you can't declare a charge on a unit three units deep to consolidate into it and fight twice (or thrice). Melee feels like it'll be best unleashed en masse in mid to late game hitting with multiple units at a time.
At least that's how it feels with what I can see right now.
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
Got ya sorted:
Spoiler:
there's a wealth of info our there from GW, just need to google it.
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
Got ya sorted:
Spoiler:
there's a wealth of info our there from GW, just need to google it.
Edit: I misread - my bad
Rule of three has not been addressed as far as I'm aware.
I suspect the Rule of 3 still exists, even if the rule isn't referenced by name, since part of it, the detachment limits, is baked into the core rules we've seen.
I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
It's tied to the box set, so here's Thorpe talking about the lore of the Indomitus box:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Huh. I think I see how they're going to keep Dark Eldar as is.
Some verbiage as to how the haemonculous/archon/succubus/whatever all count as a 'warlord' in patrol detachments, and a special bonus of +2 detachments if they're patrols.
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
The rule of 3 didn't exist as a rule before. It was a tournament suggestion for 2000P, nothing more. Some people even ignored that the suggestion varied by game size. I could imagine that GW now ties that suggestion to their new playstyles, like combat patrol, strike force and so on. But also restricting it to organized play, like before.
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
Part of those "guidelines" brought about the detachment limits, which are in the main rules now.
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
Part of those "guidelines" brought about the detachment limits, which are in the main rules now.
The so-called 'Rule of Three' also covers how many times you can take a particular datasheet, something which is unlikely to be limited by the rules.
Honestly with additional detachments now coming at a cost, I'm not sure there's really much of a reason for the "Rule" of 3 to exist as there's now a downside for taking more than 3 of the same unit. Unless you're fielding a Brigade, but most armies either can't do that as 1500-2000pts, or can't do that while also taking 4 or more of the same non-Troop.
Also the Detachment guidelines existed in 8th from the very beginning, while the Datasheet requirements had to be FaQ'd in. It's not like they're intrinsically tied together and unseperable
2CP for a patrol was what I expected, and it's good to see they didn't go in the direction some people were saying with patrols being more than bats. This seems a pretty clear sign that the specialist detachments will also not cost more than bats, and are unlikely to cost more than 2CP, maybe even only 1CP.
Hope to hear soon whether the "soup penalty" is a real thing or if it was just a misleading way to describe the detachment tax.
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
Part of those "guidelines" brought about the detachment limits, which are in the main rules now.
The so-called 'Rule of Three' also covers how many times you can take a particular datasheet, something which is unlikely to be limited by the rules.
Nah, it could be part of Matched Play easilly. "When building an army for use in Matched Play no datasheet may be used more than three times unless the datasheet is a Troops choice."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly with additional detachments now coming at a cost, I'm not sure there's really much of a reason for the "Rule" of 3 to exist as there's now a downside for taking more than 3 of the same unit. Unless you're fielding a Brigade, but most armies either can't do that as 1500-2000pts, or can't do that while also taking 4 or more of the same non-Troop.
Even with a cost some combos were so gamebreaking that people would happily pay CP for them.
A bat + a specialist detachment is described as viable by all the play testers who have spoken on it, which provides up to 9 of whatever choice you want (if 12 for elites). I'm sure the rule of 3 is still intact.
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
Hmm, under current rules that admech force (24PL in 9th apparently) is also 24PL in 8th. It is however 317 points completely barebones up to 373 points in its most expensive loadout (flamers on the destroyers, 3 arquebus, omnispex and phosphor + arc maul on the alpha. It's a super weird loadout, but just for arguments sake).
So the readjustment of PL they've stated to incorporate doesn't seem to be there. Unless everything is going up significantly in cost
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
So why bother?
You can expand into it pretty easily from Kill Team? This is all about lowering the cost of entry for new blood into the hobby after all.
I await the Combat Patrol GT circuit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PiñaColada wrote: Hmm, under current rules that admech force (24PL in 9th apparently) is also 24PL in 8th. It is however 317 points completely barebones up to 373 points in its most expensive loadout (flamers on the destroyers, 3 arquebus, omnispex and phosphor + arc maul on the alpha. It's a super weird loadout, but just for arguments sake).
So the readjustment of PL they've stated to incorporate doesn't seem to be there. Unless everything is going up significantly in cost
They could have revalued how many points each PL is worth.
PiñaColada wrote: Maybe? I think they've been using the same PL conversions on the streams when they've mentioned it (1PL=20 points) but I could be making that up
"Wait, are you telling me that if I get the Indomitus box I get two Combat Patrol armies?"
And I close the Twitch window.
I'm not 7 and this isn't the Christmas Panto. What's next, gonna make me shout "He's behind you!" with the other kids as Abaddon sneaks around at the back of the stage?
I still don't get why playing 40K at a lower points level is being treated like a different version of the game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Wait, are you telling me that if I get the Indomitus box I get two Combat Patrol armies?"
And I close the Twitch window.
I'm not 7 and this isn't the Christmas Panto. What's next, gonna make me shout "He's behind you!" with the other kids as Abaddon sneaks around at the back of the stage?
I still don't get why playing 40K at a lower points level is being treated like a different version of the game.
It's not being treated as a different version, it's more that they wrote missions for it that work with the more points restricted format with things like the "sweep and clear" rule that means you don't have to hold an objective to claim it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Wait, are you telling me that if I get the Indomitus box I get two Combat Patrol armies?"
And I close the Twitch window.
I'm not 7 and this isn't the Christmas Panto. What's next, gonna make me shout "He's behind you!" with the other kids as Abaddon sneaks around at the back of the stage?
I still don't get why playing 40K at a lower points level is being treated like a different version of the game.
I think it matters for people getting started. The game is fully supported with graduated rules that (hopefully) still make those games interesting.
PiñaColada wrote: Maybe? I think they've been using the same PL conversions on the streams when they've mentioned it (1PL=20 points) but I could be making that up
I've never seen them claim that.
I'm pretty sure it's something Stu has mentioned really hastily in one (or more) of the streams. So not something I remember reading in an article on WHC. Again, I might be making this up but I really don't think I am.. Take that for however little you think it's worth haha
PiñaColada wrote: Maybe? I think they've been using the same PL conversions on the streams when they've mentioned it (1PL=20 points) but I could be making that up
I've never seen them claim that.
I'm pretty sure it's something Stu has mentioned really hastily in one (or more) of the streams. So not something I remember reading in an article on WHC. Again, I might be making this up but I really don't think I am.. Take that for however little you think it's worth haha
From today's article:
This is the new way to play small games of Warhammer 40,000. It’s for armies of a combined total Power Level of 50 (or around 25 power each)*.
* Or if you’d rather play with points, that’s around 500 points each.
PiñaColada wrote: Maybe? I think they've been using the same PL conversions on the streams when they've mentioned it (1PL=20 points) but I could be making that up
I've never seen them claim that.
I'm pretty sure it's something Stu has mentioned really hastily in one (or more) of the streams. So not something I remember reading in an article on WHC. Again, I might be making this up but I really don't think I am.. Take that for however little you think it's worth haha
From today's article:
This is the new way to play small games of Warhammer 40,000. It’s for armies of a combined total Power Level of 50 (or around 25 power each)*.
* Or if you’d rather play with points, that’s around 500 points each.
Well there ya go. Apparently it's good to read the little extra snippets at the end!
yukishiro1 wrote: 2CP for a patrol was what I expected, and it's good to see they didn't go in the direction some people were saying with patrols being more than bats. This seems a pretty clear sign that the specialist detachments will also not cost more than bats, and are unlikely to cost more than 2CP, maybe even only 1CP.
Hope to hear soon whether the "soup penalty" is a real thing or if it was just a misleading way to describe the detachment tax.
Eh why anybody would take patrol if specialist are 1cp? Or even 2. Those at 2 would be clear admission by gw they aren't even trying to go for balance
Err...doesn't it feel like the Primaris list will kick the Emperor's everliving gak out of the Necrons? Lopsided starters are expected, but this seems pretty cruel.
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
So why bother?
Well, playing under the usual rules at PL50 would make it a game of "stratagems with models" whereas the combat patrol angle cuts down your starting CP by 9. I guess it could make the gameplay experience slightly different?
Brad Chester said the description of points going up by 20% overall is somewhat inaccurate, that what is really happening is most stuff is going up very little if at all, but the stuff people complained about in 8th is seeing big nerfs.
I don't think it's a coincidence that none of those lists they showed have anything considered particularly powerful at the end of 8th.
yukishiro1 wrote: 2CP for a patrol was what I expected, and it's good to see they didn't go in the direction some people were saying with patrols being more than bats. This seems a pretty clear sign that the specialist detachments will also not cost more than bats, and are unlikely to cost more than 2CP, maybe even only 1CP.
Hope to hear soon whether the "soup penalty" is a real thing or if it was just a misleading way to describe the detachment tax.
Eh why anybody would take patrol if specialist are 1cp? Or even 2. Those at 2 would be clear admission by gw they aren't even trying to go for balance
I agree, it'll probably be 2, the same as a patrol. The argument for the specialists being 1CP would be that they're less flexible; they require you to take 4 units to unlock, 3 of them in the same force category, whereas a patrol is only 2 units total to unlock. If you just want a small force from another faction, a patrol gives you a lot more flexibility in achieving that. The patrol also refunds your 2CP with the warlord in it, so particularly in smaller games there'd be a role for it as your primary detachment if you want to take two detachments but don't want to have to take the requirements for a bat.
So the patrol rule for dark eldar that became obsolete after Batallion CP buffs is now usefull again without touching it. Kinda funny but if it works it works.
yukishiro1 wrote: 2CP for a patrol was what I expected, and it's good to see they didn't go in the direction some people were saying with patrols being more than bats. This seems a pretty clear sign that the specialist detachments will also not cost more than bats, and are unlikely to cost more than 2CP, maybe even only 1CP.
Hope to hear soon whether the "soup penalty" is a real thing or if it was just a misleading way to describe the detachment tax.
Eh why anybody would take patrol if specialist are 1cp? Or even 2. Those at 2 would be clear admission by gw they aren't even trying to go for balance
Hold on wheres the people to tell us that GW isn't supposed to make a balanced game and we should do all the balancing ourselves?
Galas wrote: So the patrol rule for dark eldar that became obsolete after Batallion CP buffs is now usefull again without touching it. Kinda funny but if it works it works.
How is it helpful? I mean, it offsets the CP loss for using Patrols, but that's it. You're limited to 3 detachments at 2k points anyway, and limited to 2 at 1k points.
So, taking 3 Patrols grants you a whopping 0CP bonus.
-6 CP for 3 patrols. +2 for Warlord Refund +4 for Raiding Force
It lets you assemble a fluffy Drukhari force without being penalized.
Only if you're playing 2k points. At 1k you're limited to 2 detachments. They need to make a patrol only count as half detachments for the rule to really work.
It allows you to take a more flexible Dark Eldar force with less HQ taxs (Probably the weakest part of the dark eldar codex). I believe that will be a net gain for most dark eldar lists.
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
So why bother?
Well, playing under the usual rules at PL50 would make it a game of "stratagems with models" whereas the combat patrol angle cuts down your starting CP by 9. I guess it could make the gameplay experience slightly different?
and what prevents you from adjusting the rules to fit your liking and change the size of the board if needed?
if people complain about rules from GW the answer is usually, that those are just suggestions and you can always use houserules
yet when people ask why playing small need to its own game mode the answer is that you would need to use house rules to play it otherwise (therefore it is impossible)
yukishiro1 wrote: 2CP for a patrol was what I expected, and it's good to see they didn't go in the direction some people were saying with patrols being more than bats. This seems a pretty clear sign that the specialist detachments will also not cost more than bats, and are unlikely to cost more than 2CP, maybe even only 1CP.
Hope to hear soon whether the "soup penalty" is a real thing or if it was just a misleading way to describe the detachment tax.
Eh why anybody would take patrol if specialist are 1cp? Or even 2. Those at 2 would be clear admission by gw they aren't even trying to go for balance
Hold on wheres the people to tell us that GW isn't supposed to make a balanced game and we should do all the balancing ourselves?
I more wondering why anyone would complain that 500 points isn't a competetive balanced format when it's basically rock-paper-scissors at that level just because of how units work.
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
Ghaz wrote: The 'Raiding Force' rule is an 8th edition rule already in Codex: Drukhari...
so they were not able to update that rule for the 9th edition preview but just showed the original picture to demonstrate how well this will work in 9th?
Ghaz wrote: The 'Raiding Force' rule is an 8th edition rule already in Codex: Drukhari...
so they were not able to update that rule for the 9th edition preview but just showed the original picture to demonstrate how well this will work in 9th?
I have a very bad feeling for the day 1 FAQ
Honestly, I don't see that needing changed for 9th edition.
Why are none of you talking about the No Escape rule ? Or did I miss something.
Anyway, this can be a major game changer IMHO, making a unit with that rule absolutely great for tying infantry up (yes a roll off can be lost but still)
BaconCatBug wrote: Also the 6 patrol detachment rule can't ever come into effect.
Yeah, there's something missing here, and it seems obvious. Dark Eldar can't play below 'strike force' level and use the Raiding Force rule (Battleforged has a max number of detachments, but you must be battleforged to use Raiding Force), and 5 or 6 detachments is always out. Raiding force needs an addendum that they can take extra patrol detachments (even if it requires all their detachments to be patrols if they choose to do so).
----
Aircraft Engagement Range is using a lot of words to say... not very much. You basically treat everything involving Aircraft as if it were not there, except you can't end on the bases (or on top of a model), and you can't END a move in engagement range of an aircraft. Ever.
Why do they have engagement ranges at all?
addnid wrote: Why are none of you talking about the No Escape rule ? Or did I miss something.
Anyway, this can be a major game changer IMHO, making a unit with that rule absolutely great for tying infantry up (yes a roll off can be lost but still)
Because its a rule for Wyches, not a general rule.
It already exists.
I don't play Dark Eldar (Sorry that is how i remember them), but the raiding rule actually seems better in 9th than 8th. In 8th it netted you 1 more CP than a Battalion for the cost of having one more HQ. Now, it lets Dark Eldar have three free patrol detachments all of which can be different legion traits (or whatever their version of legion traits are). I would love this rule for my Thousand Sons to bring three patrols that could all be different cults without losing any CP. I don't think a day 1 FAQ is necessary, especially since there is no way to bring 6 patrols, as even the 3000 point game has a 4 detachment limit.
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
So why bother?
Illusion of added content.
No, it's more than that. The missions are written specifically to address that there are fewer units on the table.
Ghaz wrote: The 'Raiding Force' rule is an 8th edition rule already in Codex: Drukhari...
so they were not able to update that rule for the 9th edition preview but just showed the original picture to demonstrate how well this will work in 9th?
I have a very bad feeling for the day 1 FAQ
Honestly, I don't see that needing changed for 9th edition.
so let the arguments begin if the 6 patrol detachments are intented to overrul the maximum of 4 at 3k points or that DE are able to ignore the maximum limit in general and can also bring in 3 in Combat Patrol sized games
it is either they change that, DE get a rule that allows them to take more, or we will see discussions going on (as Codex > RB)
and if all other existing rules are handled the same way, there will be a lot of dicussions on how to acutally play 9th for everysthing but the new Box Set
Ghaz wrote: The 'Raiding Force' rule is an 8th edition rule already in Codex: Drukhari...
so they were not able to update that rule for the 9th edition preview but just showed the original picture to demonstrate how well this will work in 9th?
I have a very bad feeling for the day 1 FAQ
Honestly, I don't see that needing changed for 9th edition.
so let the arguments begin if the 6 patrol detachments are intented to overrul the maximum of 4 at 3k points or that DE are able to ignore the maximum limit in general and can also bring in 3 in Combat Patrol sized games
it is either they change that, DE get a rule that allows them to take more, or we will see discussions going on (as Codex > RB)
and if all other existing rules are handled the same way, there will be a lot of dicussions on how to acutally play 9th for everysthing but the new Box Set
They have to change that and explicitly give DE a rule that allows more detachments, because the rules for detachment limits specify that to be Battleforged, you must abide by the detachment limit (presumably you can not be Battleforged and ignore it), and the Raiding Force specifies that if you ARE Battleforged, you can use Raiding Force.
So you have to abide by the detachment limits (to be BF), because raiding force checks for that (BF) before you can use it.
Binabik15 wrote: Err...doesn't it feel like the Primaris list will kick the Emperor's everliving gak out of the Necrons? Lopsided starters are expected, but this seems pretty cruel.
That's highly dependent on the rules for the units.
I’m a little disappointed that they didn’t talk about Szares’ new rules. But I guess I’ll see them in a week anyway. Just really nervous that he’ll have more than 9 wounds >.<
Binabik15 wrote: Err...doesn't it feel like the Primaris list will kick the Emperor's everliving gak out of the Necrons? Lopsided starters are expected, but this seems pretty cruel.
To me it looks like the Primaris are the strongest out of that group of patrols. (Having seen the rules for the bikers....)
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it helpful? I mean, it offsets the CP loss for using Patrols, but that's it. You're limited to 3 detachments at 2k points anyway, and limited to 2 at 1k points.
.
Army is basically split into 3 not-so-independent forces. You can get them to work together for free rather than pay for it
It's a decent buff, but it does mean you can't take 3 of anything (except troops), so I'm not sure how much play it's really going to get for competitive lists.
Since we know that those 20 warriors come to 240 points in total, and 25 PL is approximately 500 points, then that likely means that those 3 Skorpekh Destroyers plus the Lord come to a total of 260 points.
Yeah, there's something missing here, and it seems obvious. Dark Eldar can't play below 'strike force' level and use the Raiding Force rule (Battleforged has a max number of detachments, but you must be battleforged to use Raiding Force), and 5 or 6 detachments is always out. Raiding force needs an addendum that they can take extra patrol detachments (even if it requires all their detachments to be patrols if they choose to do so).
----
Aircraft Engagement Range is using a lot of words to say... not very much. You basically treat everything involving Aircraft as if it were not there, except you can't end on the bases (or on top of a model), and you can't END a move in engagement range of an aircraft. Ever.
Why do they have engagement ranges at all?
addnid wrote: Why are none of you talking about the No Escape rule ? Or did I miss something.
Anyway, this can be a major game changer IMHO, making a unit with that rule absolutely great for tying infantry up (yes a roll off can be lost but still)
Because its a rule for Wyches, not a general rule.
It already exists.
they have engagement ranges because the assumption is you can still engage them in combat with stuff with the Fly keyword like daemon princes etc
Unfortunately, the very fact that they're highlight the Wyche anti-fall-back rule probably means there are going to be no restrictions on falling back generally. So it will likely be even easier to fall back in 9th than it was in 8th, since you can now do it through models too for a CP cost.
Darsath wrote: Since we know that those 20 warriors come to 240 points in total, and 25 PL is approximately 500 points, then that likely means that those 3 Skorpekh Destroyers plus the Lord come to a total of 260 points.
yeah. If the Skorpekh Lord is about 125, that puts the Skorpekh Destroyers at 45 each.
If it is an error and is supposed to say one oblit, then it's about 365 points for what is 440 worth of points in power level in 9th. Basically resetting all the heavy points cuts CSM have gotten throughout 8th because their units weren't great. 18-20% increase.
I really have zero interest in playing 1600 point games under a new name. I was never even interested in 1850. I love the sizes of armies and the diversity of detachments you could take in 8th. Been playing since 3rd edition, well over 20 years, and 8th size and style games have been the highlight of the hobby for me. I did not at all enjoy the index point sized games (or the imbalances of index armies) when 8th first came out.
A lot of the changes to the game seem good in the new edition but I am struggling to have any enthusiasm at all for an edition where the games will be so much smaller and there will be so much less options for list building especially when you include the prohibitions to bringing allies. Just doesn't seem fun to me. I wonder if this will be the first time in over 20 years that I stop going to tournaments and events and instead just try to find people for occasional casual games in my area so we can play 2500-3000 point games on bigger tables, with more CP, and most importantly larger and more fun armies.
I hope once all is said and done I am wrong and the game is still fun for me and that points increases aren't as dramatic as they currently seem....
So, taking 3 Patrols grants you a whopping 0CP bonus.
-6 CP for 3 patrols.
+2 for Warlord Refund
+4 for Raiding Force
yukishiro1 wrote:It's a decent buff, but it does mean you can't take 3 of anything (except troops), so I'm not sure how much play it's really going to get for competitive lists.
Oh ye of little imagination. You're looking this wrong. In an 3 Detachment game, a Drukhari Overlord has the following choices for a 12 CP base army:
Battalion: 2-3 HQ, 3-6 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Brigade: 3-5 HQ, 6-12 Troops, 3-8 Elites, 3-5 Fast Attack, 3-5 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Triple Patrol: 3-6 HQ, 3-9 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-6 Fast Attack, 0-6 Heavy Support, 0-6 Flyers with 1-3 Subfaction traits (limits on selections made by taking more than 1 Subfaction)
Tell me who isn't signing up for Triple Patrol when it requires 1 more HQ than a Battalion with much more flexibility on list building?
they have engagement ranges because the assumption is you can still engage them in combat with stuff with the Fly keyword like daemon princes etc
Assumption, yes- that's just it. The problem is, current 8th edition language puts pile in and consolidate as 'moves' and even charge is a 'charge move.'
Aircraft Engagement Range says that when a model makes 'any kind of move...it cannot end the move within Engagement Range of any Enemy Aircraft models.'
So presumably a fairly significant rewrite of the Charge and Fight phases happened, or Aircraft can't be engaged... ever.
Even without it, the idea that you ignore Aircraft for almost all movement, but you have to double check ER for things that can't fight each other is just... bizarre. Nope, have to scoot those guardsmen back because they can't get too close to the plane that will just fly away next turn.
Then of course it points out that when in aircraft (or things near an aircraft) moves in the movement phase, it just doesn't care about engagement, or engagement range, and can just leave by normal moves (no fall back or remain stationary).
So its a wordy mess that mostly says that Aircraft don't interact with anything except possibly melee rules revisions they haven't shown off yet. At the very least they should have shown those off before posting four paragraphs of essentially a giant word salad of 'don't overlap models (or bases), ignore everything else.'
So, taking 3 Patrols grants you a whopping 0CP bonus.
-6 CP for 3 patrols.
+2 for Warlord Refund
+4 for Raiding Force
yukishiro1 wrote:It's a decent buff, but it does mean you can't take 3 of anything (except troops), so I'm not sure how much play it's really going to get for competitive lists.
Oh ye of little imagination. You're looking this wrong. In an 3 Detachment game, a Drukhari Overlord has the following choices for a 12 CP base army:
Battalion: 2-3 HQ, 3-6 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Brigade: 3-5 HQ, 6-12 Troops, 3-8 Elites, 3-5 Fast Attack, 3-5 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Triple Patrol: 3-6 HQ, 3-9 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-6 Fast Attack, 0-6 Heavy Support, 0-6 Flyers with 1-3 Subfaction traits (limits on selections made by taking more than 1 Subfaction)
Tell me who isn't signing up for Triple Patrol when it requires 1 more HQ than a Battalion with much more flexibility on list building?
Ok, that's fair. I was going on the assumption people wanted to take one of each type (coven, cult, kabal). If you double up with two patrols from the same division of the army you can then take 3x any choice you want. So this does let you effectively take 2 of the 3 parts of the army and take 3x something from one.
Tyran wrote: When did the 6 patrol ever come into effect? that was always a purely narrative rule as detachment limits was also a thing in 8th.
3 patrols are in general far more flexible than 1 battalion. Even with 2k points you should be able to fit a balanced force in 3 patrols.
Again, there are no limits to the number of detachments or duplicate datasheets in the 8th Edition matched play rules.
6 Drukhari Patrols with 6 Ravagers is a perfectly legal matched play army as of 8th Edition in June 2020.
There are purely optional, not specifically worded recommendations for organised events that suggest TOs might want to limit detachments (for example 3) and datasheets (for example 1, i.e. "Highlander" or 3), but those are not part of matched play rules and also very explicitly suggest that TOs play and modify them (i.e. it would be perfectly fine for TOs to perhaps exclude Patrol Detachments or Fortification Detachments or some such from a detachment limit, say).
It doesn't matter whether it's technically optional, you can always agree to make anything option you want. In point of fact basically everybody plays matched play with the rule of 3 and the 3 detachment limit.
I think the shift in costing CP rather than granting CP is going to make Patrols much more attractive. I also think the preview highlighted how it will changed Drukhari into a flexible army when before it was not. Now you can have little bit of Haemonculus for tough units, a little bit of Wych Cult for fast, melee units and fill the rest with Kabal for mid- and long-range firepower. I like it. It also shows that I can probably keep my Harlie detachment in my Eldar force without a significant CP investment, which makes me happy.
yukishiro1 wrote: It doesn't matter whether it's technically optional, you can always agree to make anything option you want. In point of fact basically everybody plays matched play with the rule of 3 and the 3 detachment limit.
A, that is technically not true. There are quite a few tournaments that limit it to 2 or even 1 each. Including large United States ones such as Adepticon, which has a Highlander event, etc.. (well, last year anyhow).
B, just because a majority doesn't make use of an option doesn't mean it's meaningless to the perhaps fewer people that make use of that option.
yukishiro1 wrote: It doesn't matter whether it's technically optional, you can always agree to make anything option you want. In point of fact basically everybody plays matched play with the rule of 3 and the 3 detachment limit.
same as everyone uses the house rule that ground level always blocks LOS yet it is still a house rule and GW did not include it into the new game
so there was no rule that limited the Detachments, therefore the original Dark Eldar rule with 6 Patrol Detachments was perfectly fine
Now we have an official limit to 3 at 2k and 4 at 3k, making the rule only playable with 3 Detachments in 2-3k point games, which is a problem and just illustrates that how think the game works and what they write down for others are 2 different things
they have engagement ranges because the assumption is you can still engage them in combat with stuff with the Fly keyword like daemon princes etc
Assumption, yes- that's just it. The problem is, current 8th edition language puts pile in and consolidate as 'moves' and even charge is a 'charge move.'
Aircraft Engagement Range says that when a model makes 'any kind of move...it cannot end the move within Engagement Range of any Enemy Aircraft models.'
So presumably a fairly significant rewrite of the Charge and Fight phases happened, or Aircraft can't be engaged... ever.
Even without it, the idea that you ignore Aircraft for almost all movement, but you have to double check ER for things that can't fight each other is just... bizarre. Nope, have to scoot those guardsmen back because they can't get too close to the plane that will just fly away next turn.
Then of course it points out that when in aircraft (or things near an aircraft) moves in the movement phase, it just doesn't care about engagement, or engagement range, and can just leave by normal moves (no fall back or remain stationary).
So its a wordy mess that mostly says that Aircraft don't interact with anything except possibly melee rules revisions they haven't shown off yet. At the very least they should have shown those off before posting four paragraphs of essentially a giant word salad of 'don't overlap models (or bases), ignore everything else.'
Yea the second from last paragraph kinda makes me think they can be charged in some way still. If you cannot move within ER ever then how does an aircraft begin its turn in ER like the rule describes. Surely it would be impossible for an opponent to create that situation in his previously turn.
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
So why bother?
Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
As for Patrols? Looking past the Dark Eldar, who have their own special rules that make them needed, it's also a good way to slip in allied forces. When your Guard want a small bit of Sisters of Battle stitched on, just grab a patrol instead of a Battallion. When your Blood Axes want a dedicated melee arm, they can take some Goffs along as a patrol for a Warboss and some lads, and so on.
Useful things! Not everyone will use them of course, but, always better to have more tools in the box, you know?
Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
So, taking 3 Patrols grants you a whopping 0CP bonus.
-6 CP for 3 patrols.
+2 for Warlord Refund
+4 for Raiding Force
yukishiro1 wrote:It's a decent buff, but it does mean you can't take 3 of anything (except troops), so I'm not sure how much play it's really going to get for competitive lists.
Oh ye of little imagination. You're looking this wrong. In an 3 Detachment game, a Drukhari Overlord has the following choices for a 12 CP base army:
Battalion: 2-3 HQ, 3-6 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Brigade: 3-5 HQ, 6-12 Troops, 3-8 Elites, 3-5 Fast Attack, 3-5 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Triple Patrol: 3-6 HQ, 3-9 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-6 Fast Attack, 0-6 Heavy Support, 0-6 Flyers with 1-3 Subfaction traits (limits on selections made by taking more than 1 Subfaction)
Tell me who isn't signing up for Triple Patrol when it requires 1 more HQ than a Battalion with much more flexibility on list building?
Ok, that's fair. I was going on the assumption people wanted to take one of each type (coven, cult, kabal). If you double up with two patrols from the same division of the army you can then take 3x any choice you want. So this does let you effectively take 2 of the 3 parts of the army and take 3x something from one.
It does, but if you want all 3 units of the same thing opperating under the same rules then that means 2 detachments running with the same benfits. Since you generally get better milage from your Venoms and Kabalites being Flayed Skull and your Archons, flyers and Ravagers as Black Heart it can create a problem. Speaking of flyers, there's only 1 flyer slot per detachment. I know people generally don't like flyers but since they are our only other option for heavy firepower besides Ravagers then we're kind of stuck taking them, and they can't be Coven.
Overall it's funny how the unchanged Raiding Force ability now works as intended when taking 3 patrols when before it was a liability, but the questions over whether you can use it at 1000pts or less and run 6 detachments will be dealt with in the exact same way this rule was dealt with before when battalions got their CP boost 2 weeks after the codex launch "Lol, no, it's for narrative, you're not supposed to use it". It's also never been anything more than a poorly thought out response to the horrible fracturing of our army.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
This really would be a shame if so. It feels like they've gone through a lot of effort to fix many of the biggest issues in 8th. Dropping the ball on melee would be quite unfortunate.
So, taking 3 Patrols grants you a whopping 0CP bonus.
-6 CP for 3 patrols.
+2 for Warlord Refund
+4 for Raiding Force
yukishiro1 wrote:It's a decent buff, but it does mean you can't take 3 of anything (except troops), so I'm not sure how much play it's really going to get for competitive lists.
Oh ye of little imagination. You're looking this wrong. In an 3 Detachment game, a Drukhari Overlord has the following choices for a 12 CP base army:
Battalion: 2-3 HQ, 3-6 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Brigade: 3-5 HQ, 6-12 Troops, 3-8 Elites, 3-5 Fast Attack, 3-5 Heavy Support, 0-2 Flyers with one Subfaction trait
Triple Patrol: 3-6 HQ, 3-9 Troops, 0-6 Elites, 0-6 Fast Attack, 0-6 Heavy Support, 0-6 Flyers with 1-3 Subfaction traits (limits on selections made by taking more than 1 Subfaction)
Tell me who isn't signing up for Triple Patrol when it requires 1 more HQ than a Battalion with much more flexibility on list building?
Ok, that's fair. I was going on the assumption people wanted to take one of each type (coven, cult, kabal). If you double up with two patrols from the same division of the army you can then take 3x any choice you want. So this does let you effectively take 2 of the 3 parts of the army and take 3x something from one.
It does, but if you want all 3 units of the same thing opperating under the same rules then that means 2 detachments running with the same benfits. Since you generally get better milage from your Venoms and Kabalites being Flayed Skull and your Archons, flyers and Ravagers as Black Heart it can create a problem. Speaking of flyers, there's only 1 flyer slot per detachment. I know people generally don't like flyers but since they are our only other option for heavy firepower besides Ravagers then we're kind of stuck taking them, and they can't be Coven.
You mean people will have to make choices when writing their list? That's a good thing. Combined with needing to take an Infantry unit for each Dedicated Transport, we should see less Flayed Skull taxi services and more units riding in their own Obession's transports.
And there is definitely 0-2 Flyers in a Patrol detachment.
Spoiler:
Overall it's funny how the unchanged Raiding Force ability now works as intended when taking 3 patrols when before it was a liability, but the questions over whether you can use it at 1000pts or less and run 6 detachments will be dealt with in the exact same way this rule was dealt with before when battalions got their CP boost 2 weeks after the codex launch "Lol, no, it's for narrative, you're not supposed to use it". It's also never been anything more than a poorly thought out response to the horrible fracturing of our army.
Hopefully, they will fix that part of the rule in Day 1 FAQ since it is now non-functional. They didn't need to preview that change to make the point they wanted to in the article.
...but they've removed OVERWATCH combat armies will do GREAT!!!
btw... just going over the pointcost of the primaris... i'm not a astartes player so maybe someone with more experience could help out...
current points with about 10-20% increases: lieutenant 80 intercessors 100 Ancient 115 thats about 300 points... leaves 200 pts for 3 guard veterans (power sword and stormshield) and 3 bikes? that seems... kinda off???
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
So why bother?
It's just marketing speak for draw people back in who left for smaller, skirmish (3-20 model) games. Nothing really changed.
They've been touting the "Play a game in your lunchbreak/half an hour" thing since forever.
RedNoak wrote: ...but they've removed OVERWATCH combat armies will do GREAT!!!
btw... just going over the pointcost of the primaris... i'm not a astartes player so maybe someone with more experience could help out...
current points with about 10-20% increases:
lieutenant 80
intercessors 100
Ancient 115
thats about 300 points... leaves 200 pts for 3 guard veterans (power sword and stormshield) and 3 bikes? that seems... kinda off???
Not sure what way you think the points costs are wacky. Someone put the 3 bikes at nearly 160 earlier (53+ points each), and the Bladeguard are likely in the 30-40 point range....so 200 isn't TOO far off.
Still think the primaris bikes should be sub-40 points though.
The bikes will most likely be like 35-40 points each at launch to sell the models, that's just how GW runs. They'll get nerfed to 45-50 points for 2020 if they sell enough models in the meantime.
RedNoak wrote: ...but they've removed OVERWATCH combat armies will do GREAT!!!
btw... just going over the pointcost of the primaris... i'm not a astartes player so maybe someone with more experience could help out...
current points with about 10-20% increases:
lieutenant 80
intercessors 100
Ancient 115
thats about 300 points... leaves 200 pts for 3 guard veterans (power sword and stormshield) and 3 bikes? that seems... kinda off???
your ancient is too expensive. you must have used the chapter ancient instead of primaris. Who knows what is special rules or war gear is, but if he's basically a normal ancient, then he'll be around 80-85 points.
RedNoak wrote: ...but they've removed OVERWATCH combat armies will do GREAT!!!
btw... just going over the pointcost of the primaris... i'm not a astartes player so maybe someone with more experience could help out...
current points with about 10-20% increases:
lieutenant 80
intercessors 100
Ancient 115
thats about 300 points... leaves 200 pts for 3 guard veterans (power sword and stormshield) and 3 bikes? that seems... kinda off???
your ancient is too expensive. you must have used the chapter ancient instead of primaris. Who knows what is special rules or war gear is, but if he's basically a normal ancient, then he'll be around 80-85 points.
Did you forget he added 20% price hike as it's assumed/hinted it's average 20% increase? But that's average increase so not all units will be increasing that much. Some might go up 5%, others 30% etc.
Flyers being able to shoot even when moving away from melee, because they never fall back, just move, was a surprise to me. A pleasant one, considering flyers have been hit by the modifier and terrain rules fairly hard.
RedNoak wrote: ...but they've removed OVERWATCH combat armies will do GREAT!!!
btw... just going over the pointcost of the primaris... i'm not a astartes player so maybe someone with more experience could help out...
current points with about 10-20% increases: lieutenant 80 intercessors 100 Ancient 115 thats about 300 points... leaves 200 pts for 3 guard veterans (power sword and stormshield) and 3 bikes? that seems... kinda off???
your ancient is too expensive. you must have used the chapter ancient instead of primaris. Who knows what is special rules or war gear is, but if he's basically a normal ancient, then he'll be around 80-85 points.
like i said dont know much about astartes (especially nomenclature ) yes, i used the 'normal' ancient... but still 220 points for 3 guards with PS & SS AND 3 bikes thats way to low isnt it?
assuming the guard has at least the same statline like an intercessor the PS & SS alone would be minimum 15 points... so thats about 35 per guard, which leaves 40 points per primaris biker ((35x3) + (40x3) = 225 with an average increase of 15% for the rest)
RedNoak wrote: ...but they've removed OVERWATCH combat armies will do GREAT!!!
btw... just going over the pointcost of the primaris... i'm not a astartes player so maybe someone with more experience could help out...
current points with about 10-20% increases:
lieutenant 80
intercessors 100
Ancient 115
thats about 300 points... leaves 200 pts for 3 guard veterans (power sword and stormshield) and 3 bikes? that seems... kinda off???
your ancient is too expensive. you must have used the chapter ancient instead of primaris. Who knows what is special rules or war gear is, but if he's basically a normal ancient, then he'll be around 80-85 points.
like i said dont know much about astartes (especially nomenclature )
yes, i used the 'normal' ancient... but still 220 points for 3 guards with PS & SS AND 3 bikes thats way to low isnt it?
assuming the guard has at least the same statline like an intercessor the PS & SS alone would be minimum 15 points... so thats about 35 per guard, which leaves 40 points per primaris biker ((35x3) + (40x3) = 225 with an average increase of 15% for the rest)
That sounds about right though. That's paying full price for the sword and shield as well. Some marine units only pay 2 points for a storm shield (vanguard vets). I also assume they will have a better than intercessor stat line, with at least 1 more attack and maybe a third wound.
The bikes should be in the 35-40 point range. An attack bike with heavy bolter is like 37 points, and they aren't any better than that. Even with a points bump of 20%, anymore more than low 40s is going to make them pretty worthless.
Therion wrote: Tau are short range. Arguing anything else is insanity. I regularly outranged the entire Tau alpha strike in majors and the ETC tournaments. The 9th edition small board will do wonders in adressing that issue, but I feel their competitiveness will still come down to the points cost lottery like everyone else.
I don't see how an army whose threat range revolves around 36 inches is in any way short.
But it is. In three of the deployments you can outrange their entire army, and in the rest you can choose what gets shot, and even that gets shot from movement / mont’ka and not kayuon.
Congrats, you win because the opponent never moves....
I mean, this is a strange take. 36 inches is more than enough to lock down the battlefield.
Well we can still stop Aircrafts from moving can't we ? They can end within 1" but not on top of models. So we can still block an aircraft with models right ?
RedNoak wrote: ...but they've removed OVERWATCH combat armies will do GREAT!!!
btw... just going over the pointcost of the primaris... i'm not a astartes player so maybe someone with more experience could help out...
current points with about 10-20% increases:
lieutenant 80
intercessors 100
Ancient 115
thats about 300 points... leaves 200 pts for 3 guard veterans (power sword and stormshield) and 3 bikes? that seems... kinda off???
your ancient is too expensive. you must have used the chapter ancient instead of primaris. Who knows what is special rules or war gear is, but if he's basically a normal ancient, then he'll be around 80-85 points.
like i said dont know much about astartes (especially nomenclature )
yes, i used the 'normal' ancient... but still 220 points for 3 guards with PS & SS AND 3 bikes thats way to low isnt it?
assuming the guard has at least the same statline like an intercessor the PS & SS alone would be minimum 15 points... so thats about 35 per guard, which leaves 40 points per primaris biker ((35x3) + (40x3) = 225 with an average increase of 15% for the rest)
That sounds about right though. That's paying full price for the sword and shield as well. Some marine units only pay 2 points for a storm shield (vanguard vets). I also assume they will have a better than intercessor stat line, with at least 1 more attack and maybe a third wound.
The bikes should be in the 35-40 point range. An attack bike with heavy bolter is like 37 points, and they aren't any better than that. Even with a points bump of 20%, anymore more than low 40s is going to make them pretty worthless.
They are much better than attack bike, especially when it comes to assault.
yukishiro1 wrote: The bikes will most likely be like 35-40 points each at launch to sell the models, that's just how GW runs. They'll get nerfed to 45-50 points for 2020 if they sell enough models in the meantime.
Enough with this stupid "overpower to sell models" conspiracy.
For every new model that is overpowered, three others are underpowered.
For example...nearly every primaris unit on it's initial release?
Therion wrote: Tau are short range. Arguing anything else is insanity. I regularly outranged the entire Tau alpha strike in majors and the ETC tournaments. The 9th edition small board will do wonders in adressing that issue, but I feel their competitiveness will still come down to the points cost lottery like everyone else.
I don't see how an army whose threat range revolves around 36 inches is in any way short.
But it is. In three of the deployments you can outrange their entire army, and in the rest you can choose what gets shot, and even that gets shot from movement / mont’ka and not kayuon.
Congrats, you win because the opponent never moves....
I mean, this is a strange take. 36 inches is more than enough to lock down the battlefield.
Strange take? It’s not a take of any kind. I don’t deal in opinions but facts proven on the table. I played about 400 games with Eldar in 8th, and range was the edge vs Tau. Those games include going 5-0 and 100/100 in BTC 2020 and going 5-1 in ETC 2019 with CW. I lost 5 games with CW all edition, and I don’t think I surrendered a single tournament point vs Tau. It’s also not a take to ask you to pick up a measurement tape. Tau are badly outranged in many deployments for the opening turn, and if they need to deploy on the line and blow mont’ka just so they can shoot at one flyer that didn’t phantasm out of the way, they already lost. They got range problems that are being adressed in 9th by making the table smaller. 36” is becoming nearly the old 48” because deployment zones aren’t so deep that you can just put 11 flyers or 9 grav tanks touching the table edge and being safe.
Range is also how you actually engage the Tau castle when you do get to shoot. You go within 36” of only the units that you will destroy, clearing that area and forcing the Tau to move to fire back, giving them negative modifiers wherever applicable, and denying kayuon forever. Too often bad players, even when doing alpha, just drive into the range of everything, shoot, and wonder what happened when the kayuon return fire wipes their army.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
Reese also said the Stompa was going to be good so I'd take his meta predictions with salt. Especially if he wasn't playing with the new points or the new erratas when doing playtesting.
Aaranis wrote: Well we can still stop Aircrafts from moving can't we ? They can end within 1" but not on top of models. So we can still block an aircraft with models right ?
Sort of. You can maximize coherency distance and deny areas of the board where they can end their move- but you can't stop them from moving.
However, there is a practical limit on how much of a table you can deny to a model that can move 45+"
You can definitely set things up so that in the enemy movement phase, they can't move so they're closer to a character than any other model. for example. That's easy, except for really small armies.
But swamping the entire board so that can't end their movement anywhere is fairly impractical.
That you'd mine for salt? No. But Reece has a very mixed record on his meta predictions in the past and has been blindsided by combos people have come up with so while I appreciate his insight, I'll take it with some salt.
For the record, the only reason I, and I assume others, said we needed more info was to wait and see before dumping your army on eBay, or otherwise declaring certain parts of the game to be "dead".
Thinking about the claims by Reece a bit more: If locking people in melee was against the designer's intentions highlighting the Wyches' ability to lock units in combat, much less stuff like the Word Bearer's Ashen Axe that came out of Psychic Awakening, seems a bit odd.
I have hope that we'll at least see some kind of change to fall back, but if not, then perhaps large melee units will still be useful as they can wrap and trap multiple targets more easilly to lock at least one unit into combat. Not sure, but if there is a way to move block people into combat it's certain the meta will gladly take it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Aaranis wrote: Well we can still stop Aircrafts from moving can't we ? They can end within 1" but not on top of models. So we can still block an aircraft with models right ?
Sort of. You can maximize coherency distance and deny areas of the board where they can end their move- but you can't stop them from moving.
However, there is a practical limit on how much of a table you can deny to a model that can move 45+"
You can definitely set things up so that in the enemy movement phase, they can't move so they're closer to a character than any other model. for example. That's easy, except for really small armies.
But swamping the entire board so that can't end their movement anywhere is fairly impractical.
Was mainly concerned about this because of this stratagem for the new AdMech flyer:
Spoiler:
There were discussions about this on our thread about the usefulness of it, especially if it's counterable by screening, which looks to be still the case, although a BIT more difficult than in 8th.
Thinking about the claims by Reece a bit more: If locking people in melee was against the designer's intentions highlighting the Wyches' ability to lock units in combat, much less stuff like the Word Bearer's Ashen Axe that came out of Psychic Awakening, seems a bit odd.
I have hope that we'll at least see some kind of change to fall back, but if not, then perhaps large melee units will still be useful as they can wrap and trap multiple targets more easilly to lock at least one unit into combat. Not sure, but if there is a way to move block people into combat it's certain the meta will gladly take it.
Locking people in combat with a skill or strat (the new flamer Pteryxi etc) is very different from tri-pointing. One is an odd game mechanic that comes about from rules interactions and the other is something the unit is supposed to be actively doing.
If tri-pointing was introduced as it's own rule and with an example (or even just a general - can't fall back if the enemy is behind you rule) that'd make sense. But I don't think you can read into anything otherwise.
Thinking about the claims by Reece a bit more: If locking people in melee was against the designer's intentions highlighting the Wyches' ability to lock units in combat, much less stuff like the Word Bearer's Ashen Axe that came out of Psychic Awakening, seems a bit odd.
I have hope that we'll at least see some kind of change to fall back, but if not, then perhaps large melee units will still be useful as they can wrap and trap multiple targets more easilly to lock at least one unit into combat. Not sure, but if there is a way to move block people into combat it's certain the meta will gladly take it.
Locking people in combat with a skill or strat (the new flamer Pteryxi etc) is very different from tri-pointing. One is an odd game mechanic that comes about from rules interactions and the other is something the unit is supposed to be actively doing.
If tri-pointing was introduced as it's own rule and with an example (or even just a general - can't fall back if the enemy is behind you rule) that'd make sense. But I don't think you can read into anything otherwise.
I agree that it's different than tri-pointing, but I was refering to the "easier to leave combat" thing more than tri-pointing (which apparently still exists in some form according to Reece) since it has wider implications beyond that strat we saw.
I think there will be a lot of interesting things coming out with how the game works and how people work with it. Melee is lielly changing but I am willing to bet people work it out regardless of those changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From Blood of Kittens, enjoy with salt:
Necron Model Rules:
Silent King Pillars each have a tesla sphere, and can cast 1 C’tan power each. Otherwise have their own stat-lines and can intercept shots at BS3, T6, 8w, 4++
Silent King Himself
M10, WS2, BS2, S7, T7, W16, A4, LD10 3+/4++
Has two profiles, for shooting and combat. Deals mortal wounds on 6s to wound
Auras:
– Grants re-roll 1s to hit and wound with ranged attacks for infantry
– fearless aura
– +1 to reanimation protocol aura, or you may re-roll 1s, chosen before RP are rolled
– heals d3 wounds each turn per pillar alive.
Also grants an additional command point at the beginning of the command phase.
340 points.
Skorpekh Destroyer
M WSBS S T W A LdSv 8″ 3+ 3+ 5 5 4 3 10 3+
RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Hyperphase reap-blade Melee Melee +2 -4 3 Subtract 1 from hit rolls made with this weapon
Hyperphase reap-swords Melee Melee User -4 2 Each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon.
Reanimation Protocols
Hardwired Hatred:You can re-roll unmodified hit rolls of 1 for this model.
Skittering Advance: This model may advance and still charge later in the same turn.
Canopteck Plasmacyte: if a Canopteck Plasmacyte is accompanying a unit of Skorpekh Destroyer, then that unit may re-roll unmodified Reanimation Protocols rolls of a 1. If an enemy unit is destroyed in the fight phase by an attack made by a model in this unit then you may re-roll all Reanimation Protocols rolls for the rest of the battle
Skorpekh Lord
M WSBS S T W A LdSv 10″ 2+ 3+ 6 6 8 5 10 3+
RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Enmitic annihilator 18″ Assault 4 5 -2 1 For each unmodified wound roll of a 6, the target unit suffer 1 mortal wound in addition to any other damage.
Flensing claw Melee Melee User -2 2 Each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon. You may re-roll wound rolls for this weapon.
Hyperphase reap-cleaver Melee Melee User -4 3 –
Living Metal.
Hardwired Hatred:You can re-roll unmodified hit rolls of 1 for this model.
United in Hatred:(Aura ability) You can re-roll unmodified wound rolls of 1 for this model and models from friendly<DYNASTY> DESTROYER CULT units within 6″.
Phase Shifter: This model has a 4+invulnerable save.
Skittering Advance: This model may advance and still charge later in the same turn.
Necron Warriors
M WSBS S T W A LdSv 5″ 3+ 3+ 4 4 1 1 10 4+
RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Gauss flayer 24″ Rapid fire 1 4 -1 1 –
Gauss reaper 18″ Assault 2 5 -1 1 –
Reanimation Protocols.
Canoptek Stalker
M WSBS S T W A LdSv 7″ 4+ 4+ 5 5 5 2 10 3+
RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Bladed limb Melee Melee User -1 1 –
Phase Generator: friendly<DYNASTY> units within 6″ of a model with this rule gain a 5+ invulnerable save
Canoptek Node: (Aura ability) If this model is within 6″ of one or more friendly<DYNASTY> units with Aura abilities, this model gain those Aura abilities whilst it remains within 6″ of that unit.
M WSBS S T W A LdSv Immortal Overseer 5″ 3+ 3+ 4 4 4 3 10 3+
RANGE TYPE S AP D ABILITIES
Gauss blaster 24″ Rapid fire 1 5 -2 1 –
Eternal Overseer: (Aura ability) Whenever a model from a <DYNASTY>Immortal or <DYNASTY> Warrior unit with 6″ of a model with this rule would flee roll a dice. On a 4+ that model does not flee.
I very much doubt those "leaks". For one thing, the range of the new Gauss Reaper weapon is different from what has already been previewed. Also the Stalker's stats would fall over to a stiff breeze. These rules are similar to the ones that were quickly debunked a little while back, so it's probably a similar story here.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.
*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?
yukishiro1 wrote: It's a decent buff, but it does mean you can't take 3 of anything (except troops), so I'm not sure how much play it's really going to get for competitive lists.
You could take 3 wych cult patrols etc. That would give you 6 of anything besides troops (unless rule of 3 sticks around).
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.
*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?
Let's not forget that Reece has a messy track record when it comes to meta predictions, and the way he feels is strongest to play something doesn't always end up being true.
I mean during that podcast he also mentioned there is one more big change they haven't revealed yet, so who knows what that'll do.
Uh I hope those rumors are false because silent king sounds like a daemon primarch except vastly better and 100+ less points. That would make absolutely no sense unless Magnus and Morty are finally getting a big points cut.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.
*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?
Let's not forget that Reece has a messy track record when it comes to meta predictions, and the way he feels is strongest to play something doesn't always end up being true.
I mean during that podcast he also mentioned there is one more big change they haven't revealed yet, so who knows what that'll do.
remember his Stompa predictions? Reece is never going to live that one down.
Virules wrote: Uh I hope those rumors are false because silent king sounds like a daemon primarch except vastly better and 100+ less points. That would make absolutely no sense unless Magnus and Morty are finally getting a big points cut.
Others have pointed out that thanks to the wrong stats for the Gauss Flayer that has been debunked.
At best those were playtest rules, but more realistically they were gak made up by the internet.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.
*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?
Let's not forget that Reece has a messy track record when it comes to meta predictions, and the way he feels is strongest to play something doesn't always end up being true.
I mean during that podcast he also mentioned there is one more big change they haven't revealed yet, so who knows what that'll do.
remember his Stompa predictions? Reece is never going to live that one down.
I sure haven't forgotten! Which is why I've referenced it everytime people use Reece's claim about what the meta will look like when the game launches.
Heck, even I've seen a -possible- reason why MSU melee isn't the go to: it's easier to hit multiple units so even if one breaks out, you're still locked in combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I won't claim to be a tactical genius or anything, but if I can spot it without looking very hard it tells me that there is either more to Reece's claim or he's stuck on the idea that MSU is the only way to play the game.
BaconCatBug wrote: So, taking 3 Patrols grants you a whopping 0CP bonus.
It's almost as if the rule was written for a different edition of the game when detachments didn't cost CP.
One could even say that the rule was written to allow DE players to take their heavily separated army types and include parts of all 3 without needing to bring more battalions and bring 6 HQ and 9 Troops to the table before they could actually build a list!
Wakshaani wrote: Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.
It's not an extra game type, just missions more balanced towards the smaller game size. It's not like it hurts us for there to be a few missions for 500pt games after all.
Heck, 500pt games look like a good tutorial level. Not too many CP, not too many units, simply missions rules, basically a good starting point that is more manageable than before. Glad they codifies it with missions that match the smaller scale.
Wakshaani wrote: Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.
I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.
Wakshaani wrote: Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.
I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.
combat patrol is a level of gameplay.
look at it this way, GW is publishing a set of missions and saying "at this level of points, we reccomend these missions"
Wakshaani wrote: Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.
I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.
The point is marketing speak. Yeah, anyone who wants to play 40K but at an entry level can just choose to play at 500-1000 points and call it a day. But creating "special modes" is more encouraging to new players and casuals who don't understand the ruleset well enough yet to confidently fiddle with the main system.
Wakshaani wrote: Well, the requirement of only 1 HQ is a good start, plus only 1 troop. For newer players, this lets you grab a Start Collecting box and be close to a playable force out of the gate. A decent game store should keep some kind of "New player" section up and running, with small missions printed out and maybe some "House armies" that can be rented and tried out.
All of this can be done with the regular 40K rules. They didn't need a extra "game type" to achieve this.
I’m not really sure what the difference is between having these rules as part of the regular 40k rules, and having them as part of the regular 40k rules under the Combat Patrol subheading, to be honest.
combat patrol is a level of gameplay.
look at it this way, GW is publishing a set of missions and saying "at this level of points, we reccomend these missions"
Much agreement!
Having missions that are, in theory, optimised to permit play at that level makes it nice and easy to do. Rather than spending time working out how big your play area needs to be, how to limit broken detachments, how to write your own missions that function ok at 500 points - they've done all that for you and given it a name.
I kind of agree with H.B.M.C. here. The combat patrol isn't actually a game mode, it is just a bunch of missions that have been optimized for having less models on a smaller table.
Is it great to have those? Yes! Some of the CA 2019 missions simply don't work well on low point levels because they have high amounts of requirements towards an army that are difficult for many codices to fulfill. Some armies like custodes or grey knights might even auto-lose at many of those missions at 500 points.
Calling it a "new way to play 40k" is just BS though. Might as well call Prophecy of the Wolf "a new way to play 40k" because it has three missions inside its booklet.
So on the one hand, it's nice that Dark Eldar might actually get some mileage out of their Raiding Force rule.
On the other hand, has there been any suggestion that Dark Eldar might stop being a dull-as-dishwater army?
I ask because the stuff I've seen with regard to Necrons actually gave me a small amount of hope. Obviously whether it will pay off is another matter altogether, but the rethinking of the RP rule, the focus on horror elements, the desire to make them a more infantry-based army etc. all seemed like very reasonable ideas. And that's without mentioning the swathes of new models they're getting.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see anything comparable for Dark Eldar. hence, I'm forced to believe that 'boring and missing most of their units and wargear' is what the designers consider to be a 'good place' for them.
vipoid wrote: So on the one hand, it's nice that Dark Eldar might actually get some mileage out of their Raiding Force rule.
On the other hand, has there been any suggestion that Dark Eldar might stop being a dull-as-dishwater army?
I ask because the stuff I've seen with regard to Necrons actually gave me a small amount of hope. Obviously whether it will pay off is another matter altogether, but the rethinking of the RP rule, the focus on horror elements, the desire to make them a more infantry-based army etc. all seemed like very reasonable ideas. And that's without mentioning the swathes of new models they're getting.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see anything comparable for Dark Eldar. hence, I'm forced to believe that 'boring and missing most of their units and wargear' is what the designers consider to be a 'good place' for them.
Sigh.
Dark Eldar are not getting an immediate Codex like Necrons so its sadly unlikely till that happens
Pretty sure it will be Marines and Necrons shortly after release
Chaos Marines, Space Wolves and Angels (hopefully supplements)
Maybe Sisters
The rest will get something when it fits in...
The 3 in one Dark Eldar Codex is an interesting idea with some bad implemtation - if they had been Marines each would have its own Codex
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.
*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?
They already have Alternating Activations in the combat phase and they apparently ARE tossing locked-in-combat so...WTF are you talking about?
yukishiro1 wrote: Reece again so make of it what you want, but on the podcast today he said that tri-pointing itself was very different in 9th than it is in 8th - not just the way you get out of it, but the way you tri-point to begin with. He also said again that melee is the biggest change in 9th and that there is other stuff still coming that changes things fundamentally, and Frankie said it's "harder to stay engaged" in melee than before. They both then said that in 9th whatever you charge with pretty much dies the next turn no matter what, so they think people are going to be taking smaller combat units since they'll just die on the next turn, and that this was a deliberate choice by the developers because they didn't like stuff being trapped in combat.
So another clear sign that falling back is even easier than it was in 8th, and that melee units will be shot off the table after charging even more easily in 9th than in 8th.
Make melee suicidal ? Locked-in-combat is dumb; it creates boring gameplay. But if GW truly dislikes the mechanic, they should just move to AA ,and toss locked-in-combat.
*sigh* They always have to implement things the wrong way, don't they?
They already have Alternating Activations in the combat phase and they apparently ARE tossing locked-in-combat so...WTF are you talking about?
There’s a lot of people who want to move to single units taking their entire turn one at a time, for some reason.
I’d be fine with trying out alternating phases adding more dynamic interplay to a turn, but having units take their entire turn one at a time would kill the feel of 40k more than any other change so far.
Alternating activation only works with limited units. I love adeptus titanicus but alternating activation get really daunting the higher points you go. It also demands far more attentiveness on the part of both players, you can't go grab a drink or hit the washroom as easily as when players take turns doing their whole movement/shooting ect.
Crablezworth wrote: Alternating activation only works with limited units. I love adeptus titanicus but alternating activation get really daunting the higher points you go. It also demands far more attentiveness on the part of both players, you can't go grab a drink or hit the washroom as easily as when players take turns doing their whole movement/shooting ect.
It also encourages ultra-elite armies that can activate a majority of their power to maximize the effect of a single activation. Oh look, it's a Knight list that can activate 1500 points by the time the poor Ork player activated 500.
And it would 100% encourage double activations on a single strong devastating unit. Keep something super powerful out of line of sight until your final activation for that turn, then expose it and shoot. In the following turn your opponent now has, at best, a single activation to counter before you activate it again. Not fun. Nobody likes to think about the implication of AA in a 2000 point game. They've just been convinced it is some medical panacea for 40k's woes, both real and imagined.
vipoid wrote: So on the one hand, it's nice that Dark Eldar might actually get some mileage out of their Raiding Force rule.
On the other hand, has there been any suggestion that Dark Eldar might stop being a dull-as-dishwater army?
I ask because the stuff I've seen with regard to Necrons actually gave me a small amount of hope. Obviously whether it will pay off is another matter altogether, but the rethinking of the RP rule, the focus on horror elements, the desire to make them a more infantry-based army etc. all seemed like very reasonable ideas. And that's without mentioning the swathes of new models they're getting.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see anything comparable for Dark Eldar. hence, I'm forced to believe that 'boring and missing most of their units and wargear' is what the designers consider to be a 'good place' for them.
Sigh.
Dark Eldar are not getting an immediate Codex like Necrons so its sadly unlikely till that happens
Pretty sure it will be Marines and Necrons shortly after release
Chaos Marines, Space Wolves and Angels (hopefully supplements)
Maybe Sisters
The rest will get something when it fits in...
The 3 in one Dark Eldar Codex is an interesting idea with some bad implemtation - if they had been Marines each would have its own Codex
Not really. It's much more akin to the Dark Angels and how they have Greenwing, Deathwing and Ravenwing. Basically all three should be field-able as a single army without penalty but also have the ability to be taken En mass as their individual branch. What screws the Dark Eldar over currently is being penalized if I want to take a single detachment and play with all the units in my book, heck even with just 2/3 of the book. I think the idea would have been more sound had the army been more fleshed out, but having only a single HQ and troop slot or missing FA/Elite/Heavy in some combo for each just makes it odd. Space marines would actually have been the perfect codex to try something like that with their 75-100 entries or what ever absurdity it has ballooned to. Not that I advocate that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Alternating activation only works with limited units. I love adeptus titanicus but alternating activation get really daunting the higher points you go. It also demands far more attentiveness on the part of both players, you can't go grab a drink or hit the washroom as easily as when players take turns doing their whole movement/shooting ect.
The idea I had for AA in 40k was to make your army into different battle groups. So for example 500-750 point sections. So in a 2000 pt game you would have 3-4 battle groups in your army, same as your opponent and you could alternate activating those groups.
It would help mitigate the alpha a bit and it would make you think before committing, so you don't abandon one part of your army head hunting part of theirs and leave your self open.
You could leave individual AA for combat patrol or kill team, but use battle groups for AA in larger.
Jason: There are two ways in which you can field Lords of War units such as Imperial Knights – either as a Super-heavy Detachment of 3-5 Knights, or singly as part of a Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachment (usually as an allied Detachment). Even though it may at first seem expensive (as Titanic units, it will cost 6 Command points to include a Super-heavy Detachment of Imperial Knights), it’s possible to get those CPs refunded, like the ‘core’ Patrol, Battalion and Brigade Detachments
They didn't specify how that works, but said they'll cover it when they do Chaos Knights tomorrow.
With these costs I can see alot of 2001 point tournaments to start at 18cp being popular. an imperium soup army bringing knight, 2 relics, chapter master, 2nd warlord trait is going to run dry of CP very fast.Or people will have to just adjust to very little CP once they hit the battlefield compared to how much they have been used to.
floating loyalist tanks.
