I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.
All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.
Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.
Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.
Mate you said Gaunt Carpet a few posts ago, playing it straight, as if gaunts needed to be reigned in lol
He's using skyweavers to demonstrate his point. It also applies to a ton of other units. Heck, just look at admech.
2 troops, the 2 new cav, the new jump troops, the 2 strider chickens and the 50's bots. Thats a ton of crap that gets punished for taking that 6th guy or more. That's one book lol.
Leave the memery on 4chan.
And gaunt carpet was an example of the specific problem, not a claim that it was lighting the meta on fire (at least outside of Australia).
Applying it to mid sized units means that people can't substitute them for hordes to try and play the same daisychain game on a smaller level. 2" between models is amlot of ground, and would allow a 10 model unit using 25mm bases to cover over 30" of space. It'd allow a 32mm one to cover nearly 40" of space.
Honestly I feel coherency should have been taken down to 1" instead, but maybe they went back and forth on this and decided 2" was better (maybe it was for maximum melee pile in for small units, I don't know).
I won't claim the rule is great, but it's not another nail into any coffin either.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't agree that it's a punishment unleas your army hinged on very specific builds and uses of screens.
It's punishing because it exists. Because you remove one casualty and suddenly half your unit dies because you didn't obsessively measure out 2" on all your units last turn like some TFG back when we still used blast markers.
And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly? Like I get it punishes you for going maximum daisy chain, but why is that the only way you want to run the unit exactly? You can't cap more than one objective at a time, multi-charging has a less massed line approach now and outside of trying to fill up board space with a single horde I am not seeing exactly why the line formation is the only formation worth using.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.
All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.
Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.
Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.
Because needing to crowd all my models under a paper cutout sounds equally dumb?
Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.
If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.
For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?
ClockworkZion wrote: And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly?
Because you shouldn't have to! The game shouldn't force you into specific formations, especially for the most basic unit size in the game (10-man units).
As before, if the problem was conga lines, then they need to fix conga lines. Screwing over the base unit size with an awful unscalable auto-casualty rule makes things worse. As always GW are using a mattock when they should be using a scalpel. GW aren't fixing the problem, they're fixing it by creating new problems.
ClockworkZion wrote: And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly?
Because you shouldn't have to! The game shouldn't force you into specific formations, especially for the most basic unit size in the game (10-man units).
As before, if the problem was conga lines, then they need to fix conga lines. Screwing over the base unit size with an awful unscalable auto-casualty rule makes things worse. As always GW are using a mattock when they should be using a scalpel. GW aren't fixing the problem, they're fixing it by creating new problems.
Why shouldn’t you have too? Why shouldn’t the game favor some model formations while making others less tenable? Who are you and why should I care about what you say?
Castozor wrote: You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.
YEAH they don't have melee. They're 10 points per S4 AP- attack for crying out loud.
Castozor wrote: You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.
YEAH they don't have melee. They're 10 points per S4 AP- attack for crying out loud.
They've got better melee than most comparable units.
A Devildog, Fire Dragons, SoB Retributors... All with worse melee.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.
If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.
For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?
Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"
ClockworkZion wrote: And you can't just run them in two ranks of 5, or a small blob, or a shorter line why exactly?
Because you shouldn't have to! The game shouldn't force you into specific formations, especially for the most basic unit size in the game (10-man units).
As before, if the problem was conga lines, then they need to fix conga lines. Screwing over the base unit size with an awful unscalable auto-casualty rule makes things worse. As always GW are using a mattock when they should be using a scalpel. GW aren't fixing the problem, they're fixing it by creating new problems.
It's not even forcing you into specific formations, it's merely removing one option from the table: maximized conga lines.
I really don't get your arguement because the only thing it did was removing the opyion of stretching out units as far apart as possible to null out your opponent's movement options across a wider space (even that "X" that keeps getting brought up is guilty of only existing as a means to fill space).
You can still make lines of bodies, they just can't crowd out as much space. I fail to see that being the same as you're claiming.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.
If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.
For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?
Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"
Well, not really. People daisy-chain for auras, but they also do it to block off space. This rule seems motivated at least in part by making it harder to screen off space - but it still allows 30 grots to screen off a whole table edge, so who knows what's really going on. The 9th edition rule is just bad - it doesn't cure the problem, and it comes at significant cost.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.
If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.
For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?
Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"
Well, not really. People daisy-chain for auras, but they also do it to block off space. This rule seems motivated at least in part by making it harder to screen off space - but it still allows 30 grots to screen off a whole table edge, so who knows what's really going on. The 9th edition rule is just bad - it doesn't cure the problem, and it comes at significant cost.
I wonder if the intent was to force people to commit more bodies to do it. Bigger units, shorter chains, that.sort of thing.
Castozor wrote: You mean the combat potential of a super shooty squad that shouldn't by rights have any melee to begin with? Primaris are ridiculous generalist that outshoot most other specialist shooty elites of other Codexes while still f'ing up most other non-melee units and quite a few melee specialist units of other races for no reason. Their statline should not exist to begin with.
YEAH they don't have melee. They're 10 points per S4 AP- attack for crying out loud.
They've got better melee than most comparable units.
A Devildog, Fire Dragons, SoB Retributors... All with worse melee.
Ya know, people keep bringing up Fire Dragons as though they were usable to begin with. These new guys being better than a bad unit really doesn't prove a point. Seeing as I don't even know what a Devildog is, it is probably in that same exact category.
I don't know the cost of Retributors nor do I know their rules and Strats so I'd have to get back on that. HOWEVER, I'm 100% sure I can say confidently they're better than Fire Dragons though.
Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.
I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.
One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).
Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnikang wrote: Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.
I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.
One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).
I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.
I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.
ClockworkZion wrote: Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnikang wrote: Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.
I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.
One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).
I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.
I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.
This is the opposite take of what the math says. It's a nerf to the ability to screen off things in a straight line, but it's not a significant nerf to screening out overall board space - though it does make it a lot more complicated to do the math necessary to set up your units to do so.
If you're looking to screen off a board edge, this makes it harder to do so - though you can still screen off the whole short edge with a single 30-man unit. But if you're just looking to take up space on the board, this only diminishes the space you can take up by a very small amount.
ClockworkZion wrote: Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnikang wrote: Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.
I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.
One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).
I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.
I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.
This is the opposite take of what the math says. It's a nerf to the ability to screen off things in a straight line, but it's not a significant nerf to screening out overall board space - though it does make it a lot more complicated to do the math necessary to set up your units to do so.
If you're looking to screen off a board edge, this makes it harder to do so - though you can still screen off the whole short edge with a single 30-man unit. But if you're just looking to take up space on the board, this only diminishes the space you can take up by a very small amount.
Fair point. So if we play on a smaller board does it really hurt the horde then? Sounds like filling up tabke space might still be strong for them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnikang wrote: Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.
I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.
One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).
I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.
I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.
It'll affect all large units though. Hordes are meant to be large presences on the boards, are they not? Their purpose is to control the board, as they project a large area of threat, because they are a large area.
We can disagree about that, and that's fine, but I'm looking at it from a perspective of someone who enjoys horde tactics and drowning my enemy in Gant/Goyle/Acolyte/Stealer/Abby bodies....
Edit: Meaning I dont think this change will make running hordes better for fun, but might actively make it less fun. Because it's another change among many that are not helping them.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why? I thought the whole problem was it was gamey to string models out super far. This nips that straight in the bud.
If X=14", a 5 man squad has the exact same flexibility it does now. A 10-man squad has far more flexibility within the cutout than the current 9th edition rules, and the bubble is ~95% as large as the 9th edition rules allow you to safely deploy in. There is no "crowding" going on at all - quite the opposite, it allows far more flexibility than the 9th edition rules do for units of 6 to up to about 13.
For larger units, if you're truly concerned that they SHOULD be able to daisy-chain out as long as they're SuperFriend pairs holding hands, you could raise the bubble size if you really wanted to. But DO you really want to let that 30 man grot unit daisy-chain out 44"?
Isn't the real issue that characters can no longer join units, and possess aura buffs? Why not just bring back IC and make buffs applicable only to the character's own unit? Or find other ways to make leaders interesting, that isn't "make X unit(s) more betterer at what they already do?"
Well, not really. People daisy-chain for auras, but they also do it to block off space. This rule seems motivated at least in part by making it harder to screen off space - but it still allows 30 grots to screen off a whole table edge, so who knows what's really going on. The 9th edition rule is just bad - it doesn't cure the problem, and it comes at significant cost.
Yeah, this is another band-aid with many unintended consequences.
This was someone finding a loophole in another player's bs cheese strategy. The white scars player? Was a muppet, and deserved to have someone pull something like this on him.
I dunno if you were actually playing the game at this time, but null deploying your army was awful and gamey. Way worse than going "well my gakky tau kroot (cause they were always REALLY gakky) are gonna show this jerk what's up)"
Yes - he was a muppet. There's more to what made that such a cheese list, but I don't envision the same lists now. If we can't null deploy then unmitigated conga lines would be pretty detrimental to reserves.
What this really nerfs is not the ability of 30-man units to screen or take up space - they already take up so much space that they can generally do so even after the nerf - but the ability of 10ish man units to do the same.
For the 30-man units, the biggest impact of this rule is just annoyance - having to double daisy chain, having to be careful with movement ala editions with blast templates to make sure you don't start a potential chain reaction, etc. You can still do pretty much anything you could do before that you actually wanted to do, it's just more annoying to do so now, and it makes your unit much less effective at doing anything else while taking up space.
So, any new word on a release date or anything for the new box set? I was hoping it would have gone up for pre order by now. Last I heard was just "Maybe July"
Yes. Cause you had to check before, so if it wasn't an issue, it shouldn't be now.
It's just that the outcome has raised and you feel like you or your opponent must take advantage of it. Or rather, to take advantage of your opponents little mistakes while measuring, which seems quite fun. Really.
You're missing the point. In 8th, if you were 1" off, nobody cared because nothing really happened. Bump them back within 1". If someone accidentally got out of coherency, there was very little penalty. In fact, people would remove casualties out of coherency on a regular basis. Now, this has changed dramatically. If someone doesn't measure correctly, or if casualties cause the loss of a number of models that were lynchpins to your daisy chain, you could lose the entire squad to 5 men. That is a huge change. So, yes, I am going to pay attention to coherency more than ever before. That doesn't make me TFG, it makes me someone who is paying attention to the rules.
Granted, in Daedalus' example, I would allow my opponent to move as he intended. But, if he accidentally gets out of coherency by removing models in the casualty resolution, you better believe he is going to be losing more models. Otherwise, why follow the rules at all? There are tournament players at top tables who make a living out of daisy-chaining and then removing models from within the daisy chain, breaking it until they can move again. They can't do this anymore. It will change the way larger armies like Orks, Nids and IG are played.
And if you think no one is going to pay attention to it and no one is going to be measuring their units similar to mitigating blast templates from 5th Edition, then I think you're kidding yourself.
At what point in the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven punch combo do we get to consider light units utterly hosed then?
50% point hikes while elite units get 20% hikes?
Unit coherency+autodeath for being out of coherency dictating casualty removal?
Terrain system that even further advantages high base stats?
No longer generating CP?
Blast weapons getting auto max hits?
Mission setups that benefit msu?
No longer being allowed to for anyone up in melee?
What the feth does a unit like gretchin, guardsmen, lesser daemons, cultists, gsc etc actually DO now? In what circumstance would you EVER want three cultists for an intercessor? The morale rule is a fething nothingburger, a tiny bonus for a style of play nobody used because making hordes fearless or effectively fearless is cheap as chips or free depending on what faction you play.
Until they preview some thing that actually gives a cheaper infantry unit some role that it can actually perform in game, yeah, its sure as hell looking like this is 40k, Elite Edition 5, Guns Edition 8. Say hi to the new boss, same as the old boss.
This was someone finding a loophole in another player's bs cheese strategy. The white scars player? Was a muppet, and deserved to have someone pull something like this on him.
I dunno if you were actually playing the game at this time, but null deploying your army was awful and gamey. Way worse than going "well my gakky tau kroot (cause they were always REALLY gakky) are gonna show this jerk what's up)"
Yes - he was a muppet. There's more to what made that such a cheese list, but I don't envision the same lists now. If we can't null deploy then unmitigated conga lines would be pretty detrimental to reserves.
Not only that, but all he had to do was Outflank one single unit of all of those White Scars and he would've been fine.
yukishiro1 wrote: I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.
All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.
Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.
Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.
I would really wish to ask playtesters on this one.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You keep posting that picture like it means something.
I've posted it in different contexts, so, yea? It's pretty germaine.
Castozor wrote: Overall I feel this hurts melee more because inpiling/tri pointing will be even more difficult for what benefit to melee exactly?
We don't know that part yet.
This rule hasn't been addressed:
Are we going to bet that GW will keep the rule in this form which basically ensures additional casualties due to coherency? Or could there actually be more to the puzzle? It could very well be that units in melee don't take coherency tests.
ClockworkZion wrote: Anothrr thouhht is that the coherenacy changes may be to prevent things like hordes wrapping and trapping entire armies. I get that vehicle changes make thst less of an issue, but this might have been part of a double tap on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnikang wrote: Personally, it just feels like another check mark against larger units.
I dont like it, but it'll be bearable I guess. What will kill it is if they change how wound allocation works. I was speaking with my group earlier, and if they go back to 'wounds allocated to nearest model first', I'm sure this is the death knell for large units.
One of my group was saying he think it may be a possibility that some units will be able to do that, considering the vague Kelemorph tidbit we were shown in the GSC focus (which made me sad, as it's an army I play and nothing sounded different or better for them).
I disagree. It is a death knell for a specific kind of large horde: the board control carpet/screen.
I am still unconcinced that all large units are dead in the water.
This new rule doesn't prevent the table from being carpeted in the slightest, especially not on the ever shrinking board. If GW wants to deal with massed units buy making them more static they could have done it several other ways, one being not pushing the size of a standard game every fething edition while simultaneously dropping points.
Your arguing that this solved some phantom issue that is hardly an issue anyway. But even if screening were considered a problem (its not, it's called strategy) this introduces more problems then the one it aims to fix. all while hilariously not eliminating the supposed issue.
For one carpeting the table as you put it has nothing to do with conga lining. You can still do that with blobs, just like you can still conga line. This rule is just clunky and silly.
As an aside, for a while now I have pondered the idea of turning hordes of infantry once taken at certain numbers into large swarms. Or, you know, calling them hordes. Just allow for units to be granular up to a max of 10 models and anything larger is billed as a horde of X Y or Z size. Sell larger movement trays or party bases and give the horde a degrading profile like a vehicle or monster. Heck, if the Triumph of Saint Catherine can exist then so can this. Then you eliminate so many of the piddly issues in one move. Coherency, moral, spacing, footprint, engagement range, model removal etc etc. It also would curb the feels bad scenario of 20 GSC acolytes that have been pain painstakingly modeled and painted being peeled off to a stiff fart, at least I get to see my horde of rabble as a horde until it's dead.
Necros wrote: So, any new word on a release date or anything for the new box set? I was hoping it would have gone up for pre order by now. Last I heard was just "Maybe July"
GW has confirmed July. Many of us suspect it'll go on pre-order next week.
yukishiro1 wrote: I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.
All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.
Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.
Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.
I would really wish to ask playtesters on this one.
Me too, but I doubt they'd have an answer. I don't think GW generally discusses reasoning with playtesters, they just ask for feedback on the rules they give them. So while a playtester might have said "you know, this is clunky, it'd be a lot easier if you just did a 'all models within X' rule instead," I'm not sure that would have led to an explanation for why they chose not to do that. From the way playtesters have talked about it in the past, it seems like it's much more a case of "use this ruleset and tell us if it needs a minor tweak here or there" rather than "help us come up with a totally different way to do this thing."
the_scotsman wrote: At what point in the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven punch combo do we get to consider light units utterly hosed then?
50% point hikes while elite units get 20% hikes?
Unit coherency+autodeath for being out of coherency dictating casualty removal?
Terrain system that even further advantages high base stats?
No longer generating CP?
Blast weapons getting auto max hits?
Mission setups that benefit msu?
No longer being allowed to for anyone up in melee?
What the feth does a unit like gretchin, guardsmen, lesser daemons, cultists, gsc etc actually DO now? In what circumstance would you EVER want three cultists for an intercessor? The morale rule is a fething nothingburger, a tiny bonus for a style of play nobody used because making hordes fearless or effectively fearless is cheap as chips or free depending on what faction you play.
Until they preview some thing that actually gives a cheaper infantry unit some role that it can actually perform in game, yeah, its sure as hell looking like this is 40k, Elite Edition 5, Guns Edition 8. Say hi to the new boss, same as the old boss.
Cultists saw a 50% hike, but Necron Warriors only saw a 9% one despite them both being horde type units. It's only that -any- shift ot Cultists points was going to seem unreasonable when moving them up from 4ppm.
Unit coherency only punishes specific builds that people collectively hated: the daisy chain for buffs, around corners, ect. Yes, you can still do it, but not like before. It also punishes people for pulling from the middle as mentioned in a post above.
Cover is seeing a lot of improvements across the board. Yes, a +1 to your save from light/heavy cover helps models with lower number saves more, but the -1 to hit cap and 6s always hitting benefit low BS models more.
CP generation in 8th was garbage. Stop trying to defend it. You're not being shackled to spamming low cost units to maximize your CP freeing up points for other options. With other buffs in play stuff like Deff Dreads look like a good investment, for example, over you're 5th or 6th Grot squad.
Max hits =/= max wounds. It's still a dice game, and upping the number of hits only ups the average wounds a bit. Let's use the Leman Russ Battlecannon versus Orks with no buffs or cover as an example: 6 shots, 3 hit, 2.5 wounds go through = 2.5 dead Orks. Currently it averages 1.46 dead Orks, so it's better, but not breaking any heads in. I get it, dice can be swingy, but we're also not shooting on a bowling ball either. Stuff is going to be messing with those rolls. Even a -1 can drastically mess with a unit's number of successful wounds that get through.
How do the missions benefit MSU? Actions require units to still be alive to score. Killing 5 dudes is easier to do than killing 30, and if you're focusing down 30 dudes you're not shooting the other units elsewhere that are also performing actions. And other than 2 patrol missions (which are 500 point game missions), we've seen one mission that plays at 2k and I don't know how that benefits MSU more, but I can always be wrong.
I'm not sure about that last one, but if it's about not being able to drag your opponent's entire army into melee via massed charges, that was a stupid mechanic that hurt vehicle heavy armies more than any one else. Glad to see it gone.
yukishiro1 wrote: I already gave you another alternative that is much easier to apply, stops long daisy-chains completely instead of requiring a buddy, and has none of the unintended and absurd consequences like the skyweaver example.
All models in a unit most be within X" of all other models. Set X at whatever you want, though I would suggest 14" as that is the length of a 5 model daisy chain with 32mm models. Keep 2" cohesion rule from 8th, obviously.
Super easy to apply (just use a paper cutout of X" diameter). No edge cases. No weird bowtie loopholes. No more long daisy-chains, period. What's not to like? If we think daisy chains are a problem it fixes them way better than the approach they took.
Now as much as I give GW a hard time, something I came up with in 30 seconds is clearly something that must have occurred to them too. So the question is: why did they choose this method instead? And I have to admit, I have no idea what the answer is.
I would really wish to ask playtesters on this one.
Ask the rules devs, they're the ones who decided on it.
Necros wrote: So, any new word on a release date or anything for the new box set? I was hoping it would have gone up for pre order by now. Last I heard was just "Maybe July"
GW has confirmed July. Many of us suspect it'll go on pre-order next week.
We know next's week preorder is Age of Sigmar's General's Handbook. With the Model preview on Saturday, it would make sense they announce on Sunday that the next Saturday's preorder will be the new edition and the new boxed set. So that's preorder on July 11th. All releases of this nature have been two week preorders, so July 25th is looking more an more likely.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think we're all failing to ask the real question: how do Tyranids "raise the banner"? Do they just pee on the objective to mark it?
Synaptic rally point via psychic organism. Doesn't project synapse, but pulses the 'safe/stressed' tones over the Hivemind link. Probably an tentacle bundle or some sort of mid-sized capillary growth.
Edit: Probably going to make some little Markers to plop down on Objectives for this, depending on how common it might actually be. Have plenty of bits to make them as a Tyranid player.
Speaking of objective markers, the Sector Imperialis Objectives are still absent from the store. No longer available.
So, no longer relevant to the game, or getting an update/refresh?
alextroy wrote: We know next's week preorder is Age of Sigmar's General's Handbook. With the Model preview on Saturday, it would make sense they announce on Sunday that the next Saturday's preorder will be the new edition and the new boxed set. So that's preorder on July 11th. All releases of this nature have been two week preorders, so July 25th is looking more an more likely.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think we're all failing to ask the real question: how do Tyranids "raise the banner"? Do they just pee on the objective to mark it?
They plant the seeds for some very aesthetic capillary towers that will really spruce up the yard when they fill out, and guard said seeds while they sprout to make sure they don't get eaten by snails or killed by a late frost.
Pissing on a hilltop to mark it is what the Space Wolves do.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think we're all failing to ask the real question: how do Tyranids "raise the banner"? Do they just pee on the objective to mark it?
Synaptic rally point via psychic organism. Doesn't project synapse, but pulses the 'safe/stressed' tones over the Hivemind link. Probably an tentacle bundle or some sort of mid-sized capillary growth.
Right, so, glancing over this post at speed, every single word looks a little... different.
Not sure tyranids needed subtext, but here we are.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Speaking of objective markers, the Sector Imperialis Objectives are still absent from the store. No longer available.
I know you're talking about No Longer Available and not Temporarily Out of Stock Online, but the Tyranid selection is ridiculous right now. Out of 38 model versions in the Tyranid range (out of which 26 are unique kits), there are 12 (11 unique) available and 26 (15 unique) Temporarily Out of Stock.
Spotted thanks to the Competetive Warhammer Subreddit:
From the Genestealer Cults Faction Focus: "This, combined with the extra Command point per turn, means that over the standard* new edition game length of 5 battle rounds, you’ll have at least 17 in a game.".
From the Genestealer Cults Faction Focus: "This, combined with the extra Command point per turn, means that over the standard* new edition game length of 5 battle rounds, you’ll have at least 17 in a game.".
Yeah, I think they say it a couple times in the Faction Focus.
That means Castles (excluding that one Tau castle people like to bring up that moves to the centerboard early game) need to start moving earlier in the game when more of the opposing army is still in play, which is good for the game. Plus shorter game.
Not sure if it was noted before, but a fun fact about the melta dudes: if in melta range, you throw two dices for the damage and keep one of the results (not necessarily the best). Sure gonna help against the poster NPC enemy's quantum shielding, because they were just not quite good enough without that little extra
PS: Not sure if that change of wording occurred mid-way during 8th for other meltas but I think it was always two dices and keep the best.
According to Brian from Tabletop Titans they will be doing a 9th preview and battle report during the pre-launch preview that GW is going to allow them to do plus they'll be doing their own "focus faction" articles every day for every faction in 40k where they will explain army list changes, how the rules affect various armies and so on.
Can't wait.
Also, in regards to horde units I take 3 x 30 PB's in my Daemons. Never saw the need to conga line them across the board. I just find it easier to blob them up close together. In 4th and 5th I separated them due to blast markers. Now with no blast markers I don't see the need to spread them apart.
Also with blasts. A d3 or a d6 blast weapon gets 2 additional hits if you roll a 1, 1 additional hit if you roll a 2, 3+ remains unchanged so I don't see how that's "extra horrible" for units from 6-10. Cover benefits units more. My 30 plaguebearers and poxwalkers aren't going to give a rats ass if a D3 shot blast weapon gets 1 or 2 additional shots on a roll of a 1 or 2.
A guy claiming to be a play tester dropped some tidbits on 4chan. Obviously it shouldn't be taken as gospel (cus 4chan, and also he made one slight mistake chatting about flyers falling back) but theres a few things worth considering:
1. Command reroll is more limited in what you can use it for, plus you reroll all dice.
2. Supreme command detachments are very different. He was vague, but you use them to bring a lord of war warlord (ie a primarch) and then get another detachment free.
3. He dropped points for the various detachments (mostly 2's and 3's) and some marine units (thunderfire cannon goes up a lot. Tactical are back to 15pts)
ClockworkZion wrote: That means Castles (excluding that one Tau castle people like to bring up that moves to the centerboard early game) need to start moving earlier in the game when more of the opposing army is still in play, which is good for the game. Plus shorter game.
Yeah, and it also makes putting stuff in reserves very costly, especially if you plan not to bring it onto the table until T3. Especially stuff that doesn't move very quickly or have significant range.
jivardi wrote: According to Brian from Tabletop Titans they will be doing a 9th preview and battle report during the pre-launch preview that GW is going to allow them to do plus they'll be doing their own "focus faction" articles every day for every faction in 40k where they will explain army list changes, how the rules affect various armies and so on.
Can't wait.
Also, in regards to horde units I take 3 x 30 PB's in my Daemons. Never saw the need to conga line them across the board. I just find it easier to blob them up close together. In 4th and 5th I separated them due to blast markers. Now with no blast markers I don't see the need to spread them apart.
Also with blasts. A d3 or a d6 blast weapon gets 2 additional hits if you roll a 1, 1 additional hit if you roll a 2, 3+ remains unchanged so I don't see how that's "extra horrible" for units from 6-10. Cover benefits units more. My 30 plaguebearers and poxwalkers aren't going to give a rats ass if a D3 shot blast weapon gets 1 or 2 additional shots on a roll of a 1 or 2.
I crunched the numbers earlier, and a Leman Russ Battlecannon on average kills 1.05 extra Orks assuming the Orks have no buffs of any kind.
Marine blasts will likely be meaner, but I also expect they'll be a lot more expensive too.
Skywave wrote: Not sure if it was noted before, but a fun fact about the melta dudes: if in melta range, you throw two dices for the damage and keep one of the results (not necessarily the best). Sure gonna help against the poster NPC enemy's quantum shielding, because they were just not quite good enough without that little extra
PS: Not sure if that change of wording occurred mid-way during 8th for other meltas but I think it was always two dices and keep the best.
Current SM codex is 'discard one.'
Index, deathguard and GSC are all 'discard lowest'
So maybe an 8.2 change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote: [
I know you're talking about No Longer Available and not Temporarily Out of Stock Online, but the Tyranid selection is ridiculous right now. Out of 38 model versions in the Tyranid range (out of which 26 are unique kits), there are 12 (11 unique) available and 26 (15 unique) Temporarily Out of Stock.
Necron line (at least stateside) is currently Szeras, Immortals/Deathmarks, Deceiver, Cryptek, Imotekh and the heavy destroyer gun, so 5 'kits' and some bits. Everything that isn't being replaced is temporary, but it wasn't quite that thin before the price change.
Skywave wrote: Not sure if it was noted before, but a fun fact about the melta dudes: if in melta range, you throw two dices for the damage and keep one of the results (not necessarily the best). Sure gonna help against the poster NPC enemy's quantum shielding, because they were just not quite good enough without that little extra
PS: Not sure if that change of wording occurred mid-way during 8th for other meltas but I think it was always two dices and keep the best.
With marine codex. They and sisters have superior meltas(usefuc occasionally even vs non necrons) than other imperium because bespoken rules. Huzah. Reminds days when dark angels had inferior storm shields just for fun of it
So many pages for a rule that no one is going to think twice about after a few games.
As with a lot of these changes, it looks like they are trying to punish the extremes that were making the game unfun. The arbitrary number of 5 is not really an issue, and running 6 models is not going to be a problem because you will just stagger them accordingly until you take a casualty, then you can forget about it. The key is it stops those 20-30 men long lines that were getting buffs from 40" away while holding an objective at the other end.
If this makes the game more dynamic by not allowing easy screens (hello, buff to melee), then it's a plus. The game needs more fluidity and I'm hoping we get closer to that with this ruleset. In reality, this rule is a non issue as soon as you remove yourself from the 8th edition mindset.
A guy claiming to be a play tester dropped some tidbits on 4chan. Obviously it shouldn't be taken as gospel (cus 4chan, and also he made one slight mistake chatting about flyers falling back) but theres a few things worth considering:
1. Command reroll is more limited in what you can use it for, plus you reroll all dice. 2. Supreme command detachments are very different. He was vague, but you use them to bring a lord of war warlord (ie a primarch) and then get another detachment free. 3. He dropped points for the various detachments (mostly 2's and 3's) and some marine units (thunderfire cannon goes up a lot. Tactical are back to 15pts)
Again it could all be a troll but worth checking.
To quote mine from that thread: Command Rerolls:
probably command rerolls...the 1CP strat everyone gets. Its affects a lot less now. what you can use it on is kinda in line with where miracle dice can be used. Also is used it afect the entire roll, not just a die now. So reroll on a charge means rolling both dice. 2 examples of where it can't be used it say to get a litany to take affect or rerolling to make a vehicle not explode
Secondaries:
These are so many I don't remember them all..lol. They depend on your army playstyle really. There are 5 categories of and you choose 3 with no more than 1 from each category. The first 3 categories were very similair to ITC mission secondary objectives. I say similar cause not the same. (Ex: one like recon, it scores if you have units in 3 table quarters or 4, the later obviously giving more points that turn) each secondary maxes at 15pts. The laster 2 categories were squad and character specific ones, usually very hard to pull off but worth big reward. In our crew every time we tried one we were shut down by the opponent usually or suffered for trying.
Detachments:
I dont remember seeing aux detachmets for the just one random unit. Supreme command is gone is the way you know it. Its there but now its a way to fit in Bobby G or Magnus kinda thing. you take it with them for no CP and then they have a rule called Supreme Commander, that allows one additional detachment free. But to do this they HAVE to be the army warlord
RE: Non-Supreme Commander LoWs getting hosed:
Yeah, Guard are really only suffering here, warithknight can still have a craftworld keyword and get strats used upon it. Otherwise you have to go all in on a super detach at 6CP. This got discussed a little but most serious lists in 8th didnt run just one anyway, usually it was 3 or more. In that build they get traits
T Fire Cannon: 85 / 45 gunner (Total130) Outriders : 45 ea Invader ATV: 80 with Onslaught cannon, 85 Multimelta Judicar: 85pts Bladeguard Vets: 35 tpts Bladeguard Ancient: 85pts
Hope for Hordes?:
Yes, you just need to prioritize blast weapons as your targets. Most lists building on a single detachment will limit response to horde killing beyond blasts. large units just run in blobs like in AoS now
How does the Shooting Phase in 9th work?:
Read 8th ed you will know, its same
CP:
you start with 12 CP, you gain an additional 1 CP at the start or Command Phase of every turn. % turn games so total of 17 CP over course of game. Your base detachment that has warlord is free any additional detachments you have to pay for. 2CP for a patrol, 3 CP battalion, Spearhead, outrider, or Vanguard. 3CP for a super Aux detach
Brigades being used?:
some may, but with point increases dont see tons of brigades running around. By time you pay the fast attack, Elite and Heavy tax not many points left to take advantage of more slots
Falling back:
To fall back is a stratagem now, so only one unit can and it costs CP. Its one of the 6 basic Strats all armies get. This is expanded from the base 3 they used too
okay let me clarify, the strat allows escape from tri pointing. non tri pointed units can still fall back but risk attacks from the new strat
Drones:
Have not seen the app, drones work same, but large shield drone units are susceptable to blast weapons hitting them hard. Tau still have fly so can fallback and shoot. Lots of points changes. its a huge munitorium style manual with rulesbook much like that came with last Chapter Approved giving all the points. Off hand I know most of the marines points
"but fly doesn't let you fall back and shoot":
your correct, just checked, fly units do loose fall back and shoot ability. My appologies, I dont play Tau or Eldar so not really and issue with my armies. Basically no falling back and shooting unless a strat or unit ability
"BS you're a playtester because you don't know the fly fallback change"
Yeah sorry I dont build armies way you like..lol. I play IH body press with Levi dread, I play BA, I play Astra Militarum, those are my main armies. Only fly units I ever reallyused with shield captain on dawneagles and I dont tend to fall those back as I use them like jam units
Knights:
The crusader I cannot answer as there was a typo on point cost for knight in test packet. Had it listed for 3950pts base..lol. That said a Paladin is 310pts base, 10pts for 2 stubbers, 100pts for battlecannon, then 30 for chainsword. So 450pts total
Any changes that'll shake up the meta?:
I am not sure what was thought on morale, only big notices I have seen is if you want to run a large screen of conscripts you can now, they dont all run. Morale was a miss in my opinion. AP values are staying about the same, smaller table is a thing but armies are smaller too and hordes cant stretch the board due to coherency so it works oddly enough. No major weapon changes other than blast. multi shot weapons getting blast is only profile change. Found it funny on eliminators shooting a squad over 6 they get 9 shots now if right ammo used
bullyboy wrote: So many pages for a rule that no one is going to think twice about after a few games.
As with a lot of these changes, it looks like they are trying to punish the extremes that were making the game unfun. The arbitrary number of 5 is not really an issue, and running 6 models is not going to be a problem because you will just stagger them accordingly until you take a casualty, then you can forget about it. The key is it stops those 20-30 men long lines that were getting buffs from 40" away while holding an objective at the other end.
If this makes the game more dynamic by not allowing easy screens (hello, buff to melee), then it's a plus. The game needs more fluidity and I'm hoping we get closer to that with this ruleset. In reality, this rule is a non issue as soon as you remove yourself from the 8th edition mindset.
And yet, again, you can still stretch a 30 man squad 43". So your example is literally still possible. If they were trying to stop a 30 men long line that was getting buffs from 40" away from holding an objective at the other end, they literally failed at that.
So either they're really bad at doing things, or that wasn't the point of this change.
The unit coherency check doesn't specify that you have to make an attempt to regain coherency, so you could theoretically start removing models from the center of the line and suicide units down to 1 model on purpose. Are there any situations where this could be beneficial? The models don't trigger any rules for being destroyed, so my idea of having Ynnari characters regain wounds is out.
Edit: I think you may be able to drop an enemy character or unit out of engagement range if you are charged by 2+ units.
The bit where he initially said only one unit can fall back and it costs CP and then walked it back and said "no actually any amount can fall back, that one is only for escaping a tri-point," which flatly contradicts what he said before, seems a pretty obvious sign it's a faker.
Same for the thing about being able to fall back and shoot.
If it is a real playtester, it's someone with a very poor grasp of the basic rules, and you would hope someone that bad at remembering things would not be one of their playtesters.
Oaka wrote: The unit coherency check doesn't specify that you have to make an attempt to regain coherency, so you could theoretically start removing models from the center of the line and suicide units down to 1 model on purpose. Are there any situations where this could be beneficial? The models don't trigger any rules for being destroyed, so my idea of having Ynnari characters regain wounds is out.
Make charge for enemy harder Even at the expense of more models comes to mind. rare though
bullyboy wrote: So many pages for a rule that no one is going to think twice about after a few games.
As with a lot of these changes, it looks like they are trying to punish the extremes that were making the game unfun. The arbitrary number of 5 is not really an issue, and running 6 models is not going to be a problem because you will just stagger them accordingly until you take a casualty, then you can forget about it. The key is it stops those 20-30 men long lines that were getting buffs from 40" away while holding an objective at the other end.
If this makes the game more dynamic by not allowing easy screens (hello, buff to melee), then it's a plus. The game needs more fluidity and I'm hoping we get closer to that with this ruleset. In reality, this rule is a non issue as soon as you remove yourself from the 8th edition mindset.
And yet, again, you can still stretch a 30 man squad 43". So your example is literally still possible. If they were trying to stop a 30 men long line that was getting buffs from 40" away from holding an objective at the other end, they literally failed at that.
So either they're really bad at doing things, or that wasn't the point of this change.
It still restricts the total distance, and the with the buff to blast, that unit might start dwindling a little quicker and get a lot shorter. It's obvious they don't want singular units spread across the table interacting with so many different parts of the battlefield at once. They want one unit doing one job.
yukishiro1 wrote: The bit where he initially said only one unit can fall back and it costs CP and then walked it back and said "no actually any amount can fall back, that one is only for escaping a tri-point," which flatly contradicts what he said before, seems a pretty obvious sign it's a faker.
Yeah, it probably is, but I did my due diligence anyways just in case.
Oaka wrote: The unit coherency check doesn't specify that you have to make an attempt to regain coherency, so you could theoretically start removing models from the center of the line and suicide units down to 1 model on purpose. Are there any situations where this could be beneficial? The models don't trigger any rules for being destroyed, so my idea of having Ynnari characters regain wounds is out.
Make charge for enemy harder Even at the expense of more models comes to mind. rare though
Coherency check is after Morale though, so they'd already charged you at that point.
It still restricts the total distance, and the with the buff to blast, that unit might start dwindling a little quicker and get a lot shorter. It's obvious they don't want singular units spread across the table interacting with so many different parts of the battlefield at once. They want one unit doing one job.
Right. But it doesn't prevent the thing you said it was designed to prevent. So either they are really bad at rules or it wasn't meant to prevent that. Similarly, if it's "obvious they don't want singular units spread across the table," and that they want "one unit doing one job," their attempt to make that happen doesn't work. So again, either they're really bad at rules or it wasn't meant to prevent that.
If they wanted to prevent that, "all models have to be within X of every other model" was a much simpler way to nip that in the bud, without any of the weird loopholes and edge cases this approach produces. So we have to think there's some reason they really wanted to still allow 30 man units to block out a whole table edge, so much so that they didn't take the much easier option to stop it.
ClockworkZion wrote: That means Castles (excluding that one Tau castle people like to bring up that moves to the centerboard early game) need to start moving earlier in the game when more of the opposing army is still in play, which is good for the game. Plus shorter game.
Wait...it will actually be 5 turns? So only 4 turns to score? That's going to be a really tight squeeze to max out.
ClockworkZion wrote: That means Castles (excluding that one Tau castle people like to bring up that moves to the centerboard early game) need to start moving earlier in the game when more of the opposing army is still in play, which is good for the game. Plus shorter game.
Wait...it will actually be 5 turns? So only 4 turns to score? That's going to be a really tight squeeze to max out.
Some secondaries can be scored on your turn, but it'll definitely force people out of their deployment zones sooner.
It still restricts the total distance, and the with the buff to blast, that unit might start dwindling a little quicker and get a lot shorter. It's obvious they don't want singular units spread across the table interacting with so many different parts of the battlefield at once. They want one unit doing one job.
Right. But it doesn't prevent the thing you said it was designed to prevent. So either they are really bad at rules or it wasn't meant to prevent that. Similarly, if it's "obviously they don't want singular units spread across the table," and that they want "one unit doing one job," their attempt to make that happen doesn't work. So again, either they're really bad at rules or it wasn't meant to prevent that.
If they wanted to prevent that, "all models have to be within X of every other model" was a much simpler way to nip that in the bud, without any of the weird loopholes and edge cases this approach produces. So we have to think there's some reason they really wanted to still allow 30 man units to block out a whole table edge, so much so that they didn't take the much easier option to stop it.
Actions prevent units from doing multiple jobs, unless you're making a unit screen and perform an action.
I don't think they wanted to lock all units down, I think they just wanted to have a clear rule that prevented certain interactions (like blocking the long table edge, or daisy chaining models being added to the unit). The rule feels more like it was to deal with some of the abuse the 8th ed rule got.
A guy claiming to be a play tester dropped some tidbits on 4chan. Obviously it shouldn't be taken as gospel (cus 4chan, and also he made one slight mistake chatting about flyers falling back) but theres a few things worth considering:
1. Command reroll is more limited in what you can use it for, plus you reroll all dice.
2. Supreme command detachments are very different. He was vague, but you use them to bring a lord of war warlord (ie a primarch) and then get another detachment free.
3. He dropped points for the various detachments (mostly 2's and 3's) and some marine units (thunderfire cannon goes up a lot. Tactical are back to 15pts)
Again it could all be a troll but worth checking.
Hrmmm. Hard to tell if trolling or genuine mistake.
To fall back is a stratagem now, so only one unit can and it costs CP. Its one of the 6 basic Strats all armies get.
I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
A guy claiming to be a play tester dropped some tidbits on 4chan. Obviously it shouldn't be taken as gospel (cus 4chan, and also he made one slight mistake chatting about flyers falling back) but theres a few things worth considering:
1. Command reroll is more limited in what you can use it for, plus you reroll all dice.
2. Supreme command detachments are very different. He was vague, but you use them to bring a lord of war warlord (ie a primarch) and then get another detachment free.
3. He dropped points for the various detachments (mostly 2's and 3's) and some marine units (thunderfire cannon goes up a lot. Tactical are back to 15pts)
Again it could all be a troll but worth checking.
Hrmmm. Hard to tell if trolling or genuine mistake.
To fall back is a stratagem now, so only one unit can and it costs CP. Its one of the 6 basic Strats all armies get.
He also goofed up the fly change as well, but corrected himself.
I mean those are both publicly available rules details, so I want to say mistake, but it's /tg/ and we're all desperate for info so it's equally likely to be a troll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
I don't even think the intent is to punish all 10 man units as much as it is to perhaps make hordes more attractive than MSU chaffe.
Jidmah wrote: I'm fairly sure that skyweavers in base-to-base are within 2" of the model behind their neighbor
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, you can deploy them in two lines of (or one of 4 and one of 2). The point is that it's deeply silly that:
6 skyweavers base to base in a line = unacceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 14 inches long.
5 skyweavers in a line 2" from one another = acceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 20 inches long.
14 inch line of base to base models = bad, 20 inch line of models spaced 2 inches apart from each other = fine.
If you have 6 Skyweavers lined in base-to-base up like this:
ABCDEF
Skyweaver A would be within 2" of both B and C, because their bases are something like 1.3 inches wide.
It’s seems that the same fella on tg is claiming that all the regular marines + Deathwatch will be in one book, and supplements with unique units and such will eventually follow. The current supplements will stand with updated points until then.
Apple Peel wrote: It’s seems that the same fella on tg is claiming that all the regular marines + Deathwatch will be in one book, and supplements with unique units and such will eventually follow. The current supplements will stand with updated points until then.
Deathwatch being a supplement could help fix them.
Now to just put the Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves into supplement form and the whole mess with how they currently handle Primaris updates could be fixed.
Apple Peel wrote: It’s seems that the same fella on tg is claiming that all the regular marines + Deathwatch will be in one book, and supplements with unique units and such will eventually follow. The current supplements will stand with updated points until then.
A couple weeks ago I was told a similar thing from a source that was spot on on every 9th edition rule: I was told Marines get 'An Ultimate Marine Book' with all the Marines in the same Codex, and in future BA and SW are supplements like all the others. I also assumed that the old supplements would be legal until updated, but probably need some heavy erratas.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
Yeah shudder that 10 strong unit would be better at SOMETHING. As it is 10 strong units are inferior to 2x5 in pretty much every way.
But then again when playtesters want marine msu gunlines rule it's no wonder this happens.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
Yeah shudder that 10 strong unit would be better at SOMETHING. As it is 10 strong units are inferior to 2x5 in pretty much every way.
But then again when playtesters want marine msu gunlines rule it's no wonder this happens.
10 man units are better targets for strats still.
I feel like this discourages spamming 10 man chaffe units more than it discourages 10 max sixed units.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
Books generally have an 18 month lead time. To be ready for 9ths launch Necrons and Marines would need to be playtested along side the core rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
that is the point, there is no way we won't see a new Marine Codex in 2020 and it is rather sooner than later
so if they got one to test, they know it is coming and know how it changes
and having Primaris in one book with everyone else being a Supplement is expected by a lot because it is easier and cheaper for GW while they can sell mote books
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
That's just nonsense. Many of the 9th edition playtesters have been on for a long time. Same guys who told me basically the whole 9th edition rule book told me about chapter approved changes and codex books before. Because they playtest everything GW eventually releases.
Sure there might be a few celebrity names who GW brought on the 9th edition playtest group as a means of marketing, but plenty of guys have been on it a long, long time. The only thing that changes with the times is how much GW actually listens to the feedback those guys give back.
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.
Yea if only units could generically be guaranteed to alpha off a flanking position for only a single CP... Oh wait, now they can.
Slayer had a point, a poor one, but he couldn't resist being extreme as usual. He's part of the crowd that contributed to the idiotic redefining of the word literally through his hyperbole. So now he's moved onto other words like absolutely apparently
He has quoted himself several times in that chain, which contains the irrefutable evidence of his own failure. Yet his complete lack of humility drives him to dig deeper.
Except you paid cp for them to waltz on, take 8 wounds off say a leman russ and then get annihilated. They're good but they're not as broken as people are crying about.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
The Tabletop Tactics guys explicitly said that they got involved in play testing too late for 9th core rules but have been playtesting new codices.
[EDIT]: I found another version, so I'll summarise.
M8 3+ 3+ 6 6 7 4 10 3+
He's got claws that give him an extra two attacks (nothing to write home about) and his staff that's either S8 -4 D6 (D3 shots at 18") or +1 -3 D2.
Living Metal, +1 to We'll Be Back rolls for units within 3", and psykers within 9" suffer preils on any double.
His main rule is to try and be a Necron Fabius Bile, with his "Mechanical Augmentation" that he does at the end of the movement phase (or if he destroys a unit in HTH). It's a D3 rolls for a unit within 6" - +1S, +1T or +1BS for the rest of the game.
He costs 555 * 10 - 5500 + 80 points (that was my attempt at the obnoxious points listings people used to make). He costs 130 points.
[EDIT]: I found another version, so I'll summarise.
M8
3+
3+
6
6
7
4
10
3+
He's got claws that give him an extra two attacks (nothing to write home about) and his staff that's either S8 -4 D6 (D3 shots at 18") or +1 -3 D2.
Living Metal, +1 to We'll Be Back rolls for units within 3", and psykers within 9" suffer preils on any double.
His main rule is to try and be a Necron Fabius Bile, with his "Mechanical Augmentation" that he does at the end of the movement phase (or if he destroys a unit in HTH). It's a D3 rolls for a unit within 6" - +1S, +1T or +1BS for the rest of the game.
He costs 555 * 10 - 5500 + 80 points (that was my attempt at the obnoxious points listings people used to make). He costs 130 points.
I'm guessing reddit links don't work on here or something, but yeah that's the gist of it. Considering the size of his model, maybe a bit underwhelming but for 130 pts I think he's alright. Certainly worth the 20 pts price increase on his old rules.
nfe wrote: The Tabletop Tactics guys explicitly said that they got involved in play testing too late for 9th core rules but have been playtesting new codices.
Unless its in a new video, I think they said they were involved in play testing points for the new edition rather than new codexes. Which doesn't mean they are not doing codexes - but we are going to get a quasi universal Index in a few weeks time, and it would be nice if it isn't horribly broken on release.
This should give just under 45" of safe chaining to a unit of 30. it's not the 74" it used to be, but over half the length of the board is still pretty decent.
nfe wrote: The Tabletop Tactics guys explicitly said that they got involved in play testing too late for 9th core rules but have been playtesting new codices.
Unless its in a new video, I think they said they were involved in play testing points for the new edition rather than new codexes. Which doesn't mean they are not doing codexes - but we are going to get a quasi universal Index in a few weeks time, and it would be nice if it isn't horribly broken on release.
It's in the old one, they mention working on the upcoming codsx and suggest they've been done together.
AFAIK that isn't a thing, not even the Vindicare can do it anymore. The closest you get is the Death Jester can choose which model flees when a unit fails a morale test.
AFAIK that isn't a thing, not even the Vindicare can do it anymore. The closest you get is the Death Jester can choose which model flees when a unit fails a morale test.
To be fair, that's pretty amazing if someone is daisy chaining. Taking out a specific model in the morale phase could kill half the unit.
BaconCatBug wrote: This should give just under 45" of safe chaining to a unit of 30. it's not the 74" it used to be, but over half the length of the board is still pretty decent.
Spoiler:
My own excel simulations get roughly a 48” long line for a unit of 30 models on 25mm bases.
Likewise, a unit of 30 models on 32mm bases, in 2 ranks, can reach roughly 50” across the table with every model bar 2 being in range of 3 other models. (48” if you don’t count the offset 2nd rank).
If I wanted to screen the length of the table, I’d be happy to use 3 squads of 10 guardsmen, with 4”s of gap between the table edge and each side unit, and then 2”s between the 3 squads. It isn’t a “perfect full length line”, but it is likely all you need to block most things.
Likewise, 3 units of 10 models on 32mm bases, in 2 offset ranks, is more than enough to create a line across the entire length of the table.
Just because it isn’t possible to line the entire table with a single unit anymore, doesn’t mean that is a bad change.
A block of 30 Gaunts (for example) setup as a block, has a total depth of 12” and a width of 16”. If you want to do nothing but hold a lot of table space, having a couple of units of these is more than adequate. And again, 28 of the 30 models would be in range of 3 other models so pulling yourself out of coherency would be a conscious choice.
HOWEVER, the biggest thing to consider here, is that everything so far has been talked about in a world of “planet bowling ball”. Terrain will mess up these “perfect” blocks, and so will deployment zones. With the table size change you are losing a LOT of space. 60, 32mm, bases setup at the best table spanning size in a new Dawn of War map is going to mean that basically every other unit is going to be crammed together and you’ll not have space for more than 1 or 2 tanks (maybe 3) etc.
If I wanted to, I can still use a 30-man cultist unit to screen my characters. Or I could use a couple of squads of Guardsmen. Kroot works, any unit previously used as a min sized squad of 5 still works. Screening with Marines mid table still works etc etc.
The only place where the coherency rules do start to fall down a little is when you have units of >5 models that are on bases larger than 50mm. 50mm is the point where you can place your models in a line and base-to-base and retain the 2 model coherency rule. But, at the end of the day those units are very few and far between and are almost always considered to be an elite unit rather than a “chaff screening unit”.
The other downside to all this, is when you multi charge. Model placement will require some thought now, as oppose to being able to string out and tag as much as you possibly can. But, again, this isn’t necessarily a bad change. The only army, fluff wise, that tends to fight more as individuals than as units, is Custodes, and they won’t really be affected by this as they probably won’t run units of 6+ models outside of bikes – which you can get around with due to the bases anyway.
AFAIK that isn't a thing, not even the Vindicare can do it anymore. The closest you get is the Death Jester can choose which model flees when a unit fails a morale test.
Fair enough. Not especially up on 40k!
Overall I’m liking the new coherency rule. It doesn’t prevent daisy chaining as you illustrated, but it does reduce crazy usage.
Though speaking of casualty removal as a whole, have we seen anything on how it works in 9th? If there have been changes (example, you can only remove models I’m in melee range of during combat, or they have to come from that first), that’s a big risk to run for daisy chainring.
AFAIK that isn't a thing, not even the Vindicare can do it anymore. The closest you get is the Death Jester can choose which model flees when a unit fails a morale test.
Fair enough. Not especially up on 40k!
Overall I’m liking the new coherency rule. It doesn’t prevent daisy chaining as you illustrated, but it does reduce crazy usage.
Though speaking of casualty removal as a whole, have we seen anything on how it works in 9th? If there have been changes (example, you can only remove models I’m in melee range of during combat, or they have to come from that first), that’s a big risk to run for daisy chainring.
No change that we know of. Would be pretty wild to change it given the new coherency rules that basically require you to be the one in control of who dies.
Personally, I'm curious whether anything was done to improve the Transports rule in 9th. I'm guessing no, but open to being pleasantly surprised.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Side question.....didn’t 40k used to have a challenge option in combat, where Characters and Squad leaders could call each other out for a punch up?
I know WHFB did, but 40k memory is hazy.
It did, they removed it for 8th I think? There was much rejoice
The crusader I cannot answer as there was a typo on point cost for knight in test packet. Had it listed for 3950pts base..lol. That said a Paladin is 310pts base, 10pts for 2 stubbers, 100pts for battlecannon, then 30 for chainsword. So 450pts total
Well if this guy is legit, then they probably know who he is now.
Cultists saw a 50% hike, but Necron Warriors only saw a 9% one despite them both being horde type units. It's only that -any- shift ot Cultists points was going to seem unreasonable when moving them up from 4ppm.
There are a TON of units between Cultists and Necrons, and most of them are currently or would be utterly unusable if they were to receive a 2-point bump becoming vastly more expensive in relation to the current dominant meta army. Most factions' baseline troops are significantly cheaper than Necron Warriors. If GW just shrugs and goes "Welp, percentages be damned, I guess we're gonna have 5pt gretchins and 10pt ork boyz and 8pt skitarii and 7pt neophytes!" then the situation you're going to have is exactly the situation you'd have now if cheap units didn't generate CPs: They'll be absolute garbage, because 8th's level of firepower makes the vast stat gulf between a gretchin and an Eldar Guardian largely meaningless. When a single aggressor can gak out a handful of dice and just nuke a whole squad of whatever light infantry unit, you might as well just race to the bottom and have them all be 1PPM for all their stats matter.
Unit coherency only punishes specific builds that people collectively hated: the daisy chain for buffs, around corners, ect. Yes, you can still do it, but not like before. It also punishes people for pulling from the middle as mentioned in a post above.
Well, guess we didn't need "Screening" as a use for light infantry - let's make units that can take 5-man squads best at that. So, what are light infantry units good at? Can they slug it out in a protracted firefight against elites? No. Can they threaten tanks in the same way elites can? No, guess not. Are they better at claiming and holding cover?
Cover is seeing a lot of improvements across the board. Yes, a +1 to your save from light/heavy cover helps models with lower number saves more, but the -1 to hit cap and 6s always hitting benefit low BS models more.
-1 to hit and +1 to save are the two main cover rules, both of those benefit having high base stats. If the -1 to hit cap is all you've got, A, that's not the terrain system, and B, that's a pretty low bar, and one that really only came up much against specific opponents like eldar. Not, for example, the current meta dominant army, the one that really ought to be seeing nerfs with these changes, and that specifically isn't and is getting a whole passel of ridiculously OP new units.
CP generation in 8th was garbage. Stop trying to defend it. You're not being shackled to spamming low cost units to maximize your CP freeing up points for other options. With other buffs in play stuff like Deff Dreads look like a good investment, for example, over you're 5th or 6th Grot squad.
"Stop saying horde units are bad, start saying that everything ELSE is BETTER than horde units! Look at the POSITIVE!!"
Max hits =/= max wounds. It's still a dice game, and upping the number of hits only ups the average wounds a bit. Let's use the Leman Russ Battlecannon versus Orks with no buffs or cover as an example: 6 shots, 3 hit, 2.5 wounds go through = 2.5 dead Orks. Currently it averages 1.46 dead Orks, so it's better, but not breaking any heads in. I get it, dice can be swingy, but we're also not shooting on a bowling ball either. Stuff is going to be messing with those rolls. Even a -1 can drastically mess with a unit's number of successful wounds that get through.
Right, after all it's only a ~30% firepower increase when you take your 11th squad member, I'm sure that won't make hardly any difference at all. Hey you still want that gun platform on your min guardian squad?
How do the missions benefit MSU? Actions require units to still be alive to score. Killing 5 dudes is easier to do than killing 30, and if you're focusing down 30 dudes you're not shooting the other units elsewhere that are also performing actions. And other than 2 patrol missions (which are 500 point game missions), we've seen one mission that plays at 2k and I don't know how that benefits MSU more, but I can always be wrong.
Yeah you have to stay alive...until the end of YOUR TURN. that's sure going to be tough to achieve with min size units
I'm not sure about that last one, but if it's about not being able to drag your opponent's entire army into melee via massed charges, that was a stupid mechanic that hurt vehicle heavy armies more than any one else. Glad to see it gone.
Scratch off another use for light infantry then. So what are they good at? What do they do? It's weird that that's the main question I asked, and you just basically responded to the first part of my post, and half the things I brought up you just...agreed with and said it was good they were gone. So are you agreeing with my overall premise, that on launch basically no light infantry unit is going to be worth using, and they'll just spend the edition spiraling down the point cost drain again until we end up right back at 2ppm and 3ppm models whose stats can be totally different but it won't matter because Buckets O Boltguns make you scoop 'em up a squad at a time anyway?
I was initially really fething psyched by the idea of point hikes across the board, tbh, I REALLY wanted to not have to spend 2 hours painting a model to sigh, look at it, and say "6 points down, 200 more to go." But what we've seen here isn't a fix, it's just throwing everything currently <10ppm into the trash can until you get around to making them even CHEAPER than they are right now. And that sucks, I'm sorry.
I'm not going to try and respond point by point (also red, really? Shouldn't that be left to mods?) but let's talk about light infantry in general since you feel they're useless.
Even with points hikes they're the cheapest units in the game. Sure you'll take less of them, but spamming them in 8th was done less for utility in most lists and more for unlocking CP. That was crap and I can't see the change as anything but positive. Take stuff to fulfill a job, not as a tax to gain resources for other parts of.your army.
Light infantry can still screen. Light infantry can still block off large sections of the board and does so better than MSU pr 10 man units can thanks to new coherency rules. Light infantry ia usually mediocre in shooting and melee (sure weight of dice is a thing but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently) so give up less from an opportunity cost to perform actions. Morale hurts them less now too so they need less babysitting to do their job too.
I get that light infantry doesn't have a lot going for it, but honestly should models that cost single digits ppm be packing a lot to the table? I really can't think so. If you're under 10ppm and have a ton of special rules, killer wargear or other stuff going on, chances are you shouldn't be so cheap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for point changes, we'll have to wait and see how GW handles that since they finally acknowledged that only moving points down was hurting the game.
I'm pretty much in the camp of light inf looming pretty pointless at this point.
They can still screen yes, but MSU (5) units can actually screen wider if you take a couple of units of them.
Light infantry are basically from the looks of things the equivalent of when you set a board up adding lichen and odd barrels/tank traps - terrain that is there but you might as well not have it.
As ahs been said there have only been negatives for light infantry and any bonuses are shared by eliter models.
This is the MSU/mech/vehicles edition, its pretty obvious GW have taken 'too much' tournament feedback on board for quicker games
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not going to try and respond point by point (also red, really? Shouldn't that be left to mods?) but let's talk about light infantry in general since you feel they're useless.
Even with points hikes they're the cheapest units in the game. Sure you'll take less of them, but spamming them in 8th was done less for utility in most lists and more for unlocking CP. That was crap and I can't see the change as anything but positive. Take stuff to fulfill a job, not as a tax to gain resources for other parts of.your army.
Light infantry can still screen. Light infantry can still block off large sections of the board and does so better than MSU pr 10 man units can thanks to new coherency rules. Light infantry ia usually mediocre in shooting and melee (sure weight of dice is a thing but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently) so give up less from an opportunity cost to perform actions. Morale hurts them less now too so they need less babysitting to do their job too.
I get that light infantry doesn't have a lot going for it, but honestly should models that cost single digits ppm be packing a lot to the table? I really can't think so. If you're under 10ppm and have a ton of special rules, killer wargear or other stuff going on, chances are you shouldn't be so cheap.
well intercessors can do the exact same thing and still threaten stuff und are hard to remove. I get it. you are a marine player, all this stuff doesnt have an impact on you. but please believe us non marine players.... i rarely used ork boys in late 8th, i wont anymore in 9th (if not for some hardcore changes) big mobs are dead. to time consuming to move around, cant effectivly multicharge anymore, cant trap units in CC, dont get as much benefits from new terrain rules and get blasted off the table cause of all the auto 6 shots of blast weapons. yeah i can strat em up real good... with what now exactly?! what strat did you use before on 20-30man mobs? fight again?! double shoot?! normally strats are used forspecialist units with high damage output not for chaff...
you are right that chaff still have its uses, and will still be effective. i think i'll be moving to gretchin as troops 100% now. even with a major point increase (even 1 point would be 30%) WHY? because i dont care if grots die. i dont have to overthink the position of every goddamn git because i dont expect them to do actually something, well beside to stand in the way or grab objectives
Ironically I suspect those blast weapons that are supposedly going to see point increases will get no benifit as 9th will be exclusively Marine MSU edition. Also the one army that doesn't have many weapons likely to picj up the blast tag and see points increases.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not going to try and respond point by point (also red, really? Shouldn't that be left to mods?) but let's talk about light infantry in general since you feel they're useless.
Even with points hikes they're the cheapest units in the game. Sure you'll take less of them, but spamming them in 8th was done less for utility in most lists and more for unlocking CP. That was crap and I can't see the change as anything but positive. Take stuff to fulfill a job, not as a tax to gain resources for other parts of.your army.
Seriously, as a R&H player which is a faction defined by it's bloody infantry, go take a hike . It's not just spamming them for utility, that was a mostly IoM thing, it's also because you rarely got an option to bypass these units. Not only that but i inherently can't avoid blast weapons due to squad layout.
That is fair how excactly? Also, feth everyone that want's to run an inf AM regiment because reasons i guess?
Light infantry can still screen. Light infantry can still block off large sections of the board and does so better than MSU pr 10 man units can thanks to new coherency rules. Light infantry ia usually mediocre in shooting and melee (sure weight of dice is a thing but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently) so give up less from an opportunity cost to perform actions. Morale hurts them less now too so they need less babysitting to do their job too.
Again, if you have naught but light infantry, to do the job, the same as above applies, and yes the coherency rule crippled the last workable playstyle pretty hard.
I get that light infantry doesn't have a lot going for it, but honestly should models that cost single digits ppm be packing a lot to the table? I really can't think so. If you're under 10ppm and have a ton of special rules, killer wargear or other stuff going on, chances are you shouldn't be so cheap.
oohhh excuse me for having absolute abhorrent special rules that cripple my army instantly form the get go that i'd want to actually get worth out of the only units i have access to. Especially considering that all firepower, including other light infantry , can absolutely shred my units. It is therefore fine that even by 8th standards my mainline can't kill an intercissor for equal pts and allready has morale issues to deal with at the same pts level for 1 intercissor. Greatly designed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for point changes, we'll have to wait and see how GW handles that since they finally acknowledged that only moving points down was hurting the game.
If the leaks are true and tacs and scouts go up by that much and intercissors just don't , with the baggage associated with these units thanks to PA and suplments carrying over then good fething night to anything NOT primaris. because there is no way in hell a tac is going to be worth 3/4 of a intercissor.
I was a Sisters player for a lot longer than I have ever been a Marine player actually. My avatar isn't an army I play, but one of a few models I painted I am kind of proud of.
Before Sisters I played Nids a lot too. Loved me some Endless Swarm play even though people said it was bad.
I get that at launch it's not looking especially great for some light infantry units. But we can't claim that 9th will be an MSU edition from that as the utility of those units beyond "hold so I can score" loops back to ths codex their from and what that codex gives them go make them more useful.
Points are never the entire story and I feel that we may be missing somethings that will take actual games to suss out. Not to mention see if GW threw the armies any bones in the erratas.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not going to try and respond point by point (also red, really? Shouldn't that be left to mods?) but let's talk about light infantry in general since you feel they're useless.
Even with points hikes they're the cheapest units in the game. Sure you'll take less of them, but spamming them in 8th was done less for utility in most lists and more for unlocking CP. That was crap and I can't see the change as anything but positive. Take stuff to fulfill a job, not as a tax to gain resources for other parts of.your army.
Light infantry can still screen. Light infantry can still block off large sections of the board and does so better than MSU pr 10 man units can thanks to new coherency rules. Light infantry ia usually mediocre in shooting and melee (sure weight of dice is a thing but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently) so give up less from an opportunity cost to perform actions. Morale hurts them less now too so they need less babysitting to do their job too.
I get that light infantry doesn't have a lot going for it, but honestly should models that cost single digits ppm be packing a lot to the table? I really can't think so. If you're under 10ppm and have a ton of special rules, killer wargear or other stuff going on, chances are you shouldn't be so cheap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for point changes, we'll have to wait and see how GW handles that since they finally acknowledged that only moving points down was hurting the game.
sure, I can take a 30pt unit of gretchin and have them perform actions every turn standing next to my mek gunz.
.....OR, I can take a 30pt mek, who is UNTARGETABLE as long as he's next to my mek gunz, and I can have him perform actions! Oh look, it's way more effective, that's weird. It's almost like GW has never had a role for light infantry units in their ever-escalating game beyond "I dunno, they're mandatory I guess?"
What you're going to see in 9th is what you've seen in every edition: Players will take the minimum number, of minimum sized squads, of the lightest infantry their faction can field. Juuuust enough to unlock their battalion or brigade troop slots, and then their real army will be, as it always has been, elites and big toys.
Unless they can play a faction that doesn't need to take light infantry, in which case they'll gladly skip them, like every army has for every edition.
Beyond a couple of specific meta moments like brimstone spam in index era and 3ppm conscript spam pre double nerf, light infantry has always been crap, because it can't fight anything tougher than it pound for pound and it can never efficiently fight a vehicle, because crappo units pay the same prices to bring heavy and special weapons that elites and tanks do.
I was really hoping that the opportunity to heavily redesign terrain in 9th might give GW an opportunity to make cheap infantry "The guys you want holding terrain" again, but it seems they'd rather just forget about them for an edition. And we get another three years of everything smaller than an Intercessor slowly, steadily sliding down the points toilet until we get 4ppm kabalites and 2ppm guardsmen and 1ppm gretchin, and anyone who doesn't play space marines has to pay 1,500$ for a 2,000 point army.
@Not Online: you're lashing out over R&H whose issues are far deeper than any issue brought about by this edition change. I mean unless GW's Forge World rewrites bring back the Seige of Vraks list entirely it's going to stay pretty well dead. Taking it out on me isn't going to change that.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Not Online: you're lashing out over R&H whose issues are far deeper than any issue brought about by this edition change. I mean unless GW's Forge World rewrites bring back the Seige of Vraks list entirely it's going to stay pretty well dead. Taking it out on me isn't going to change that.
Sure bud, except no, the points still stand, you can replace R&H pretty much with most xeno factions, which got addmitetly better rules yet for their majority avoid fielding light units like the plague unless they can throw them at enemies.
Heck in late 8th you even considered for some lists CSM over Cultists thanks to the nerfs galore thrown at cultists and the incessant dropping off pts for CSM.
Well, I guess the Szeras rules do provide another example on why you would want to take large units, along the same vein as the stratagem efficiency already mentioned. I still think 6-model units are kinda boned, it's either 5 models or max size.
ClockworkZion wrote: I was a Sisters player for a lot longer than I have ever been a Marine player actually. My avatar isn't an army I play, but one of a few models I painted I am kind of proud of.
Before Sisters I played Nids a lot too. Loved me some Endless Swarm play even though people said it was bad.
I get that at launch it's not looking especially great for some light infantry units. But we can't claim that 9th will be an MSU edition from that as the utility of those units beyond "hold so I can score" loops back to ths codex their from and what that codex gives them go make them more useful.
Points are never the entire story and I feel that we may be missing somethings that will take actual games to suss out. Not to mention see if GW threw the armies any bones in the erratas.
Oh no, absolutely, they could just say "lol whoops" in CA and bring the point costs of light infantry way down. but that's not a good thing.
From the rules we know so far, light infantry units would need to be CHEAPER than they are in 8th to be usable. Possibly the same price, if everything else bumped up 20%.
That's not what anyone wants. Nobody likes buying a 40$ infantry box and getting 40 points of models. To make a basic 500pt army out of GSC, they had to add a 35$ character and 2 boxes of Purestrains - 200$ with a discount box just to get to the most basic combat patrol game. Meanwhile, getting a space marine army to 2k is cheaper than it ever has been.
People don't want their rules to be garbage and then get buffed by becoming cheap garbage. I'm sorry you don't think <10ppm should ever be worth anything in game than a little token that you then just take off the board when your opponent targets it with a shooting attack. If a 100pt unit of 3 space marines with meltaguns gets to shoot a tank off the board with ease, a 100pt unit of 20 cultists or 10 fully loaded kabalites should be able to pull off cool gak too.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not going to try and respond point by point (also red, really? Shouldn't that be left to mods?) but let's talk about light infantry in general since you feel they're useless.
Even with points hikes they're the cheapest units in the game. Sure you'll take less of them, but spamming them in 8th was done less for utility in most lists and more for unlocking CP. That was crap and I can't see the change as anything but positive. Take stuff to fulfill a job, not as a tax to gain resources for other parts of.your army.
Light infantry can still screen. Light infantry can still block off large sections of the board and does so better than MSU pr 10 man units can thanks to new coherency rules. Light infantry ia usually mediocre in shooting and melee (sure weight of dice is a thing but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently) so give up less from an opportunity cost to perform actions. Morale hurts them less now too so they need less babysitting to do their job too.
I get that light infantry doesn't have a lot going for it, but honestly should models that cost single digits ppm be packing a lot to the table? I really can't think so. If you're under 10ppm and have a ton of special rules, killer wargear or other stuff going on, chances are you shouldn't be so cheap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for point changes, we'll have to wait and see how GW handles that since they finally acknowledged that only moving points down was hurting the game.
sure, I can take a 30pt unit of gretchin and have them perform actions every turn standing next to my mek gunz.
.....OR, I can take a 30pt mek, who is UNTARGETABLE as long as he's next to my mek gunz, and I can have him perform actions! Oh look, it's way more effective, that's weird. It's almost like GW has never had a role for light infantry units in their ever-escalating game beyond "I dunno, they're mandatory I guess?"
What you're going to see in 9th is what you've seen in every edition: Players will take the minimum number, of minimum sized squads, of the lightest infantry their faction can field. Juuuust enough to unlock their battalion or brigade troop slots, and then their real army will be, as it always has been, elites and big toys.
Unless they can play a faction that doesn't need to take light infantry, in which case they'll gladly skip them, like every army has for every edition.
Beyond a couple of specific meta moments like brimstone spam in index era and 3ppm conscript spam pre double nerf, light infantry has always been crap, because it can't fight anything tougher than it pound for pound and it can never efficiently fight a vehicle, because crappo units pay the same prices to bring heavy and special weapons that elites and tanks do.
I was really hoping that the opportunity to heavily redesign terrain in 9th might give GW an opportunity to make cheap infantry "The guys you want holding terrain" again, but it seems they'd rather just forget about them for an edition. And we get another three years of everything smaller than an Intercessor slowly, steadily sliding down the points toilet until we get 4ppm kabalites and 2ppm guardsmen and 1ppm gretchin, and anyone who doesn't play space marines has to pay 1,500$ for a 2,000 point army.
Fair points. I think the issue has to do with army rules more than it does the core rules, but you make fair points even if we split the hair on where the issue is.
And it's my sincere hope that points hikes dominate 9th's pricing policy over points drops. We need to keep adding more design space into the game so we have room to let light infantry actually have a role in the game beyond being what they currently are: space fillers.
And I can safely say if we get a meta with cheap characters doing actions, then we'll get a sniper meta within days, if not weeks, just to balance it out.
ClockworkZion wrote: I was a Sisters player for a lot longer than I have ever been a Marine player actually. My avatar isn't an army I play, but one of a few models I painted I am kind of proud of.
Before Sisters I played Nids a lot too. Loved me some Endless Swarm play even though people said it was bad.
I get that at launch it's not looking especially great for some light infantry units. But we can't claim that 9th will be an MSU edition from that as the utility of those units beyond "hold so I can score" loops back to ths codex their from and what that codex gives them go make them more useful.
Points are never the entire story and I feel that we may be missing somethings that will take actual games to suss out. Not to mention see if GW threw the armies any bones in the erratas.
Oh no, absolutely, they could just say "lol whoops" in CA and bring the point costs of light infantry way down. but that's not a good thing.
From the rules we know so far, light infantry units would need to be CHEAPER than they are in 8th to be usable. Possibly the same price, if everything else bumped up 20%.
That's not what anyone wants. Nobody likes buying a 40$ infantry box and getting 40 points of models. To make a basic 500pt army out of GSC, they had to add a 35$ character and 2 boxes of Purestrains - 200$ with a discount box just to get to the most basic combat patrol game. Meanwhile, getting a space marine army to 2k is cheaper than it ever has been.
People don't want their rules to be garbage and then get buffed by becoming cheap garbage. I'm sorry you don't think <10ppm should ever be worth anything in game than a little token that you then just take off the board when your opponent targets it with a shooting attack. If a 100pt unit of 3 space marines with meltaguns gets to shoot a tank off the board with ease, a 100pt unit of 20 cultists or 10 fully loaded kabalites should be able to pull off cool gak too.
I don't think that models that cost less than 10ppm should be setting the world on fire, but I also don't feel we should have many, if any, models be that cheap. Points continuing to go down is one of the things I feel has hurt the game as it has continually removed design space for things and adding in stacks of rules for unreasonably low ampunts of points.
Cheapest model in the game should be 10ppm in my book, and everything else should go up from there.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not going to try and respond point by point (also red, really? Shouldn't that be left to mods?) but let's talk about light infantry in general since you feel they're useless.
Even with points hikes they're the cheapest units in the game. Sure you'll take less of them, but spamming them in 8th was done less for utility in most lists and more for unlocking CP. That was crap and I can't see the change as anything but positive. Take stuff to fulfill a job, not as a tax to gain resources for other parts of.your army.
Light infantry can still screen. Light infantry can still block off large sections of the board and does so better than MSU pr 10 man units can thanks to new coherency rules. Light infantry ia usually mediocre in shooting and melee (sure weight of dice is a thing but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently) so give up less from an opportunity cost to perform actions. Morale hurts them less now too so they need less babysitting to do their job too.
I get that light infantry doesn't have a lot going for it, but honestly should models that cost single digits ppm be packing a lot to the table? I really can't think so. If you're under 10ppm and have a ton of special rules, killer wargear or other stuff going on, chances are you shouldn't be so cheap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for point changes, we'll have to wait and see how GW handles that since they finally acknowledged that only moving points down was hurting the game.
sure, I can take a 30pt unit of gretchin and have them perform actions every turn standing next to my mek gunz.
.....OR, I can take a 30pt mek, who is UNTARGETABLE as long as he's next to my mek gunz, and I can have him perform actions! Oh look, it's way more effective, that's weird. It's almost like GW has never had a role for light infantry units in their ever-escalating game beyond "I dunno, they're mandatory I guess?"
What you're going to see in 9th is what you've seen in every edition: Players will take the minimum number, of minimum sized squads, of the lightest infantry their faction can field. Juuuust enough to unlock their battalion or brigade troop slots, and then their real army will be, as it always has been, elites and big toys.
Unless they can play a faction that doesn't need to take light infantry, in which case they'll gladly skip them, like every army has for every edition.
Beyond a couple of specific meta moments like brimstone spam in index era and 3ppm conscript spam pre double nerf, light infantry has always been crap, because it can't fight anything tougher than it pound for pound and it can never efficiently fight a vehicle, because crappo units pay the same prices to bring heavy and special weapons that elites and tanks do.
I was really hoping that the opportunity to heavily redesign terrain in 9th might give GW an opportunity to make cheap infantry "The guys you want holding terrain" again, but it seems they'd rather just forget about them for an edition. And we get another three years of everything smaller than an Intercessor slowly, steadily sliding down the points toilet until we get 4ppm kabalites and 2ppm guardsmen and 1ppm gretchin, and anyone who doesn't play space marines has to pay 1,500$ for a 2,000 point army.
Fair points. I think the issue has to do with army rules more than it does the core rules, but you make fair points even if we split the hair on where the issue is.
And it's my sincere hope that points hikes dominate 9th's pricing policy over points drops. We need to keep adding more design space into the game so we have room to let light infantry actually have a role in the game beyond being what they currently are: space fillers.
And I can safely say if we get a meta with cheap characters doing actions, then we'll get a sniper meta within days, if not weeks, just to balance it out.
I doubt that last point. Snipers and Assassins are pretty much perpetually underpowered in any kind of game space (whether that be a video game, a board game or a wargame) because people just hate losin' their special dudes. You will never get a more negative reaction from any fanbase than when you introduce a character killer unit that's actually worth their points.
40k is a wargame in which 10 elves with sniper rifles can combine their firepower and shoot a basic marine captain in the face, and it takes them 3 full turns of uninterrupted fire to bring him down.
Oaka wrote: Well, I guess the Szeras rules do provide another example on why you would want to take large units, along the same vein as the stratagem efficiency already mentioned. I still think 6-model units are kinda boned, it's either 5 models or max size.
what magical strats did you ever used on large units before??? i can only think of two examples for orks... that would be autopass morale and kill the unit to bring em back full size
i cant really think of any strat that would be useful on chaff... but maybe its my limited perspective, i really would like to know
Oaka wrote: Well, I guess the Szeras rules do provide another example on why you would want to take large units, along the same vein as the stratagem efficiency already mentioned. I still think 6-model units are kinda boned, it's either 5 models or max size.
what magical strats did you ever used on large units before??? i can only think of two examples for orks... that would be autopass morale and kill the unit to bring em back full size
i cant really think of any strat that would be useful on chaff... but maybe its my limited perspective, i really would like to know
Well, I guess off the top of my head...
...several large units like guardian blobs, acolyte blobs, pink horror blobs, bloodletter blobs etc used limited deep strike strats + offensive strats when they arrived to guarantee they get their full firepower off on a target.
You also had some folks using fearless blobs of stuff like wyches conscripts prenerf and cultists that could very efficiently be made fearless or effectively fearless, but that was more defined by their being totally immune to morale and thus very durable than their effectiveness using stratagems.
You'd throw like VOTLW on cultists, but it was much more about the full reroll to hit from yabbadabbadon than the +1 to wound that made those strong.
Oaka wrote: Well, I guess the Szeras rules do provide another example on why you would want to take large units, along the same vein as the stratagem efficiency already mentioned. I still think 6-model units are kinda boned, it's either 5 models or max size.
Except it just makes szeras bad since he relies on bad units
Oaka wrote: Well, I guess the Szeras rules do provide another example on why you would want to take large units, along the same vein as the stratagem efficiency already mentioned. I still think 6-model units are kinda boned, it's either 5 models or max size.
Except it just makes szeras bad since he relies on bad units
Except we don't know if warriors will be bad in 9th. And Immortals were good to begin with, and he buffs them too.
Latro_ wrote: I'm pretty much in the camp of light inf looming pretty pointless at this point.
They can still screen yes, but MSU (5) units can actually screen wider if you take a couple of units of them.
Light infantry are basically from the looks of things the equivalent of when you set a board up adding lichen and odd barrels/tank traps - terrain that is there but you might as well not have it.
As ahs been said there have only been negatives for light infantry and any bonuses are shared by eliter models.
This is the MSU/mech/vehicles edition, its pretty obvious GW have taken 'too much' tournament feedback on board for quicker games
Yes, I agree MSU is king.
I can't wait to snipe characters when I have no snipers. Keep pushing this guys! It's working!
Hopefully transport rules are improved (all you need is the ability to optionally disembark in the Reinforcement step if the transport did not advance, allowing the unit to exchange its normal movement for the transport's movement) and units like guardsmen, neophytes, ork boyz and sisters can maybe be fairly impactful as mechanized units like in 5-7th ed.
They'll shoot once and get instantly hosed off the board by an aggressor farting at them the next turn, but maybe they'll get to hold an objective and make a shooting attack first.
I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
Q
- "Hey guys, where has all the light infantry gone to ?"
A
- "Well, you did want a faster game didn't you ?"
- - > 30-50 models fight 30-50 models, on all tables. Photos of the game tables don't seem so good anymore now, do they ?
MSU will indeed be king, which come to think about it will NOT speed the game up at all
addnid wrote: I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
Q
- "Hey guys, where has all the light infantry gone to ?"
A
- "Well, you did want a faster game didn't you ?"
- - > 30-50 models fight 30-50 models, on all tables. Photos of the game tables don't seem so good anymore now, do they ?
MSU will indeed be king, which come to think about it will NOT speed the game up at all
This is the company that released supplements that made some marine subfactions reach a 70% winrate after all. They'd probably wipe their brow and go "Phew, we had so many warehouses of so much primaris stuff, thank GOD every table in the LVO is a freshly bought commission speedpainted space marine army!"
addnid wrote: I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
Q
- "Hey guys, where has all the light infantry gone to ?"
A
- "Well, you did want a faster game didn't you ?"
- - > 30-50 models fight 30-50 models, on all tables. Photos of the game tables don't seem so good anymore now, do they ?
MSU will indeed be king, which come to think about it will NOT speed the game up at all
Huge blobs of models look terrible on camera. Especially considering painting goes out the window on large units for a lot of people. There are a lot of legitimate complaints about light infantry getting hosed but boards looking pretty isn't one of them.
Ghaz wrote: Grey Knights on today's Warhammer 40,000 Daily:
Tune in as we take a look forward to this weekend's Warhammer 40,000 Preview and talk about Grey Knights in the new edition.
Ooooh. Gimme psychic phase info!
Sounds good to me. Wonder if there'll be any changes.
If not, probably we'll just hear about stuff like psychic-based secondary objectives in the new missions.
And hey did you know that dreadknights will be able to shoot in melee? Did you know, daed? Did you? Shoot! In melee! Can you imagine! here's the statline for a heavy psycannon.
addnid wrote: I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
Q
- "Hey guys, where has all the light infantry gone to ?"
A
- "Well, you did want a faster game didn't you ?"
- - > 30-50 models fight 30-50 models, on all tables. Photos of the game tables don't seem so good anymore now, do they ?
MSU will indeed be king, which come to think about it will NOT speed the game up at all
This is the company that released supplements that made some marine subfactions reach a 70% winrate after all. They'd probably wipe their brow and go "Phew, we had so many warehouses of so much primaris stuff, thank GOD every table in the LVO is a freshly bought commission speedpainted space marine army!"
I highly doubt that was ever the intent. GW is in the businwss of aelling models and inciting that much potential churn into the hobby doesn't feel like good businesses sense.
addnid wrote: I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
Q
- "Hey guys, where has all the light infantry gone to ?"
A
- "Well, you did want a faster game didn't you ?"
- - > 30-50 models fight 30-50 models, on all tables. Photos of the game tables don't seem so good anymore now, do they ?
MSU will indeed be king, which come to think about it will NOT speed the game up at all
Huge blobs of models look terrible on camera. Especially considering painting goes out the window on large units for a lot of people. There are a lot of legitimate complaints about light infantry getting hosed but boards looking pretty isn't one of them.
I know it seems like forever ago, but one of the main purposes of the 8th ed ruleset was to get infantry models actually on the table again, since for....pfff, five editions in a row? you basically popped out of a transport, shot once, and then got blasted off the table. Infantry squads were pretty decorations you set off on the side of the table while you moved your transports around.
8th ed doubled the cost of most transports, and made it so that you could no longer actually use the movement of the transport to make units faster. They wanted to get more models on the table.
Tune in as we take a look forward to this weekend's Warhammer 40,000 Preview and talk about Grey Knights in the new edition. Join us from 3:30pm (BST). https://bit.ly/2Vy3hKz
Ghaz wrote: Grey Knights on today's Warhammer 40,000 Daily:
Tune in as we take a look forward to this weekend's Warhammer 40,000 Preview and talk about Grey Knights in the new edition.
Ooooh. Gimme psychic phase info!
Sounds good to me. Wonder if there'll be any changes.
If not, probably we'll just hear about stuff like psychic-based secondary objectives in the new missions.
And hey did you know that dreadknights will be able to shoot in melee? Did you know, daed? Did you? Shoot! In melee! Can you imagine! here's the statline for a heavy psycannon.
FWIW, being able to shoot the Incinerator in melee could show some potential for regular Fist Dreadknights for the cheapness.
If not, probably we'll just hear about stuff like psychic-based secondary objectives in the new missions.
Yea that seems likely.
And hey did you know that dreadknights will be able to shoot in melee? Did you know, daed? Did you? Shoot! In melee! Can you imagine! here's the statline for a heavy psycannon.
But what about stratagems that already exist? Will they ignore those?
If not, probably we'll just hear about stuff like psychic-based secondary objectives in the new missions.
Yea that seems likely.
And hey did you know that dreadknights will be able to shoot in melee? Did you know, daed? Did you? Shoot! In melee! Can you imagine! here's the statline for a heavy psycannon.
But what about stratagems that already exist? Will they ignore those?
No, but like with the GSC preview they will either inadvertently preview a new CP cost for those stratagems or they will get the cost wrong.
If it were christmas, easter and my birthday all at once they'd preview new exciting rules for psychic powers that work via any mechanic but mortal wounds, but that's just dreaming I'm afraid.
If it were christmas, easter and my birthday all at once they'd preview new exciting rules for psychic powers that work via any mechanic but mortal wounds, but that's just dreaming I'm afraid.
I don't hate mortal wounds. They're a counter to invul saves and elite armies.
addnid wrote: I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
Q
- "Hey guys, where has all the light infantry gone to ?"
A
- "Well, you did want a faster game didn't you ?"
- - > 30-50 models fight 30-50 models, on all tables. Photos of the game tables don't seem so good anymore now, do they ?
MSU will indeed be king, which come to think about it will NOT speed the game up at all
Huge blobs of models look terrible on camera. Especially considering painting goes out the window on large units for a lot of people. There are a lot of legitimate complaints about light infantry getting hosed but boards looking pretty isn't one of them.
They look kind of "messy", granted, I think tournament pics look best when you see different stuff on different tables. Anyway this isn't very important. The important thing is that we will have loads of 30k fun in this 9th edition, won't we ?
MSU's for marines will not work if there is a reliance on character auras still.
It will be too easy to snipe characters, potentially on the first turn, if not definitely the second unless you are sitting back with a castle and have the characters hidden by terrain, at which point you nuke the MSU's, deep strike/strategic reserve in and take the character out at a more preferable angle.
I think assumptions of how the game will play will be drastically different once the cause and effect synergy of all the other new rules are realised.
I'd be willing to guess the same will be for quite a lot of factions.
endlesswaltz123 Has it right, I think we can nitpick at specific things in a vacuum compared to old versions of the game and they will look problematic, but all these things working together could be much better than the sum of its parts. I'm not trying to homer for GW rulestesters and assume they are infallible, we all know they get things wrong, but we can only guesstimate so much on how wrong those things will be right now.
Oaka wrote: Well, I guess the Szeras rules do provide another example on why you would want to take large units, along the same vein as the stratagem efficiency already mentioned. I still think 6-model units are kinda boned, it's either 5 models or max size.
what magical strats did you ever used on large units before??? i can only think of two examples for orks... that would be autopass morale and kill the unit to bring em back full size
i cant really think of any strat that would be useful on chaff... but maybe its my limited perspective, i really would like to know
Well, I guess off the top of my head...
...several large units like guardian blobs, acolyte blobs, pink horror blobs, bloodletter blobs etc used limited deep strike strats + offensive strats when they arrived to guarantee they get their full firepower off on a target.
You also had some folks using fearless blobs of stuff like wyches conscripts prenerf and cultists that could very efficiently be made fearless or effectively fearless, but that was more defined by their being totally immune to morale and thus very durable than their effectiveness using stratagems.
You'd throw like VOTLW on cultists, but it was much more about the full reroll to hit from yabbadabbadon than the +1 to wound that made those strong.
deep strike... ok... thought you would use that on something idk... that can actually do damage or is worth protecting... the emporer bless the mighty fire power of guardians, acolytes pink horrors and blodletters xD
and no... +1 to hit even combined with +1 to wound doesnt make cultists great at shooting stuff they still only hit at 3+ and wound on 4+ with 0 ap, actually never saw someone use that on cultists
(well guardian bomb maybe... but that was a unusual tactic to begin with and hard to pull of)
Grey knights were great in 8th
vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons in 9th.
Grey knights are good because they can cast psychic powers.
You can spend CP put your models in reserve! That'll be...awesome with...grey knights?
Elites rule in 9th, you will see lots of elites.
Its hard to present when you have nothing to say.
Really feel they have overly milked this. Especially since there is probably another 3-4 weeks to go.
I wouldn't mind a show where they reveal something a bit more meaningful - i.e, here are the new index points for some key units, here are some key faction special rules and how they have been changed in 9th (see Tau).
But someone having to say "yeah, Grey Knights, we get... storm bolters and psychic powers... uh... yeah." for 10 minutes is a bit pointless.
Grey knights were great in 8th
vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons in 9th.
Grey knights are good because they can cast psychic powers.
You can spend CP put your models in reserve! That'll be...awesome with...grey knights?
Elites rule in 9th, you will see lots of elites.
Yea that was an utter waste of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OMG the article is all stratagems.
Grey knights were great in 8th
vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons in 9th.
Grey knights are good because they can cast psychic powers.
You can spend CP put your models in reserve! That'll be...awesome with...grey knights?
Elites rule in 9th, you will see lots of elites.
You forgot the "WOW!" to correctly indicate how earth shattering today's reveals were.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: MSU's for marines will not work if there is a reliance on character auras still.
It will be too easy to snipe characters, potentially on the first turn, if not definitely the second unless you are sitting back with a castle and have the characters hidden by terrain, at which point you nuke the MSU's, deep strike/strategic reserve in and take the character out at a more preferable angle.
I think assumptions of how the game will play will be drastically different once the cause and effect synergy of all the other new rules are realised.
I'd be willing to guess the same will be for quite a lot of factions.
Except vehicles and monsters can still Look out Sir and you're leaving your inbound units in incredibly vulnerable positions to kill one, maybe 2 characters. It's going to play out very similarly to how it did in 8th except it's going to punish mistakes way harder. which is fine, but it's not going to make MSU NOT the best way to go. Especially considering 10man squads(which is the max for a lot of imperial infantry) get screwed over by the new Coherency rules AND the blast rules.
the_scotsman wrote: so, to summarize the stream:
Grey knights were great in 8th vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons in 9thallready known .
Grey knights are good because they can cast psychic powers. no gak sherlock
You can spend CP put your models in reserve! That'll be...awesome with...grey knights?
Elites rule in 9th, you will see lots of elites. yeah cause light inf is dead
Galas wrote: If the edition is aprox 1 month from now just show us actual stuff. Whats the problem with that.
Really GW. Learn how to do previews.
They're pretty good with Stu. Here's hoping there's some other article due out, because good grief what a bust. I was hoping for something saltier so we can put yesterday behind us.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well they aren't entirely wrong, GK can be nasty against a casual, unoptimized or unprepared army, especially if they spam psilencers.
Against a fine tuned forced that has actual options at hand though? Not really strong, no.
You're not serious either are you? Even an optimized list was bad against another army's casual list!
This would've been an excellent time to give us a look at the psychic phase. Seeing as they haven't mentioned it at all, it's fair to assume there are little to no changes.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well they aren't entirely wrong, GK can be nasty against a casual, unoptimized or unprepared army, especially if they spam psilencers.
Against a fine tuned forced that has actual options at hand though? Not really strong, no.
You're not serious either are you? Even an optimized list was bad against another army's casual list!
In my local FLGS the GK player we had was a nightmare to play against because of the psilencer camping spam. If you don't get first turn to rush the purgation squad he'll delete a strong unit with his ignore los nonsense.
GK aren't that weak. They were just one note, over priced and had few real options. Like Necrons.
Leggy wrote: This would've been an excellent time to give us a look at the psychic phase. Seeing as they haven't mentioned it at all, it's fair to assume there are little to no changes.
Leggy wrote: This would've been an excellent time to give us a look at the psychic phase. Seeing as they haven't mentioned it at all, it's fair to assume there are little to no changes.
Eh. There is a fair bit they haven't talked about (movement (including charging & pile in), LOS (as opposed to cover), targeting (is it unit or model? Some of the cover rules imply a change), psychic, melee, casualty removal, etc). And they seem to underestimate the effect of little wording changes.
Plus there's ~3 weeks of previews left. Not mentioned yet doesn't equate to 'no change.' And a little change doesn't equate to low impact.
addnid wrote: I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
They will put best tzeentch voice and say "just as planned".
It's not accident. It's deliberate. They would be annoyed if people kept playing same light infantry hordes as that would mean sale strategy failed
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well they aren't entirely wrong, GK can be nasty against a casual, unoptimized or unprepared army, especially if they spam psilencers.
Against a fine tuned forced that has actual options at hand though? Not really strong, no.
Did you miss how they started to do well in tournaments post pa? The mw spam they do is silly and 10 near invulnerable paladins are tough
addnid wrote: I wonder how the GW staff will react when they will go see tournaments, and see with their own eyes what they have done...
They will put best tzeentch voice and say "just as planned".
It's not accident. It's deliberate. They would be annoyed if people kept playing same light infantry hordes as that would mean sale strategy failed
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well they aren't entirely wrong, GK can be nasty against a casual, unoptimized or unprepared army, especially if they spam psilencers.
Against a fine tuned forced that has actual options at hand though? Not really strong, no.
Did you miss how they started to do well in tournaments post pa? The mw spam they do is silly and 10 near invulnerable paladins are tough
Yeah, good at the end of 8th edition is not what they're referring to, but instead for the edition.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well they aren't entirely wrong, GK can be nasty against a casual, unoptimized or unprepared army, especially if they spam psilencers.
Against a fine tuned forced that has actual options at hand though? Not really strong, no.
You're not serious either are you? Even an optimized list was bad against another army's casual list!
In my local FLGS the GK player we had was a nightmare to play against because of the psilencer camping spam. If you don't get first turn to rush the purgation squad he'll delete a strong unit with his ignore los nonsense.
GK aren't that weak. They were just one note, over priced and had few real options.
Like Necrons.
That's...not hard to beat unless you're just throwing whatever random crap on the table.
Apparently after giving us so much to talk about over the last 3 days, GW took a day off providing any real 9th Edition content. Not one thing new today. Not even a tiny morsel.
alextroy wrote: Apparently after giving us so much to talk about over the last 3 days, GW took a day off providing any real 9th Edition content. Not one thing new today. Not even a tiny morsel.
Wasn't there supposed to be another one of those "versus" articles about the box set again?
alextroy wrote: Apparently after giving us so much to talk about over the last 3 days, GW took a day off providing any real 9th Edition content. Not one thing new today. Not even a tiny morsel.
Wasn't there supposed to be another one of those "versus" articles about the box set again?
They do usually do 2 articles. Not sure if that will happen today or what it would be, but that might be likely.
Yesterday, after seeing the coherency rules, I did a few tests. They all involved me attempting to get as many models from a brood of 30 Hormagaunts into CC with 10 intercessors, while maintaining that 2in1". Against a single unit, charges over 6" were incredibly difficult to get a meaningful number in while maintaining coherency. But for scenarios against 2 5man intercessors, it became almost impossible. If the second unit is more than 8"away, it was nearly impossible to make the charge without boxcars. And, no matter what I did, there would always be 1 or two gaunts removed after morale ( I assumed synapse was present btw) due to pile ins and consolidate moves.
If anyone else has luck surrounding 10 32mm bases spaced intelligently, I'm very interested in how to pull that off. I can't imagine how fethed boyz are without bounding leap.
StarHunter25 wrote: Yesterday, after seeing the coherency rules, I did a few tests. They all involved me attempting to get as many models from a brood of 30 Hormagaunts into CC with 10 intercessors, while maintaining that 2in1". Against a single unit, charges over 6" were incredibly difficult to get a meaningful number in while maintaining coherency. But for scenarios against 2 5man intercessors, it became almost impossible. If the second unit is more than 8"away, it was nearly impossible to make the charge without boxcars. And, no matter what I did, there would always be 1 or two gaunts removed after morale ( I assumed synapse was present btw) due to pile ins and consolidate moves.
If anyone else has luck surrounding 10 32mm bases spaced intelligently, I'm very interested in how to pull that off. I can't imagine how fethed boyz are without bounding leap.
This isn't an achievable test, because we don't know what the pile in or consolidate rule are or if coherency matters in melee. Just going to have to wait.
I'm also confused how they are losing models to the coherency check. I mean, one would imagine that the models would be near each other while in melee.
The dudes from Vanguard Tactics on youtube are going to drop a video this evening explaining more in depth, on the actual table, with terrain how the coherency works, what formations can be adapted and how best to remove models and maximize your lines.
StarHunter25 wrote: Yesterday, after seeing the coherency rules, I did a few tests. They all involved me attempting to get as many models from a brood of 30 Hormagaunts into CC with 10 intercessors, while maintaining that 2in1". Against a single unit, charges over 6" were incredibly difficult to get a meaningful number in while maintaining coherency. But for scenarios against 2 5man intercessors, it became almost impossible. If the second unit is more than 8"away, it was nearly impossible to make the charge without boxcars. And, no matter what I did, there would always be 1 or two gaunts removed after morale ( I assumed synapse was present btw) due to pile ins and consolidate moves.
If anyone else has luck surrounding 10 32mm bases spaced intelligently, I'm very interested in how to pull that off. I can't imagine how fethed boyz are without bounding leap.
This isn't an achievable test, because we don't know what the pile in or consolidate rule are or if coherency matters in melee. Just going to have to wait.
I don’t see anything to suggest that coherency will be different in melee to any other part of the game. I expect it will be the same as now, that after any move of any type the unit must be in coherency. The only differences are what constitutes coherency and the consequences of losing coherency.
Do we know that coherency is required for CC? I seem to recall prior editions played it fast and loose while combat raged, but once things settled down you needed to muster the troops together before moving on.
Nevelon wrote: Do we know that coherency is required for CC? I seem to recall prior editions played it fast and loose while combat raged, but once things settled down you needed to muster the troops together before moving on.
Coherency is required in melee in 8th, and I don’t remember playing in an edition where it didn’t, but I never played 6th or 7th, and barely played 5th.
The coherency rules are a huge pain for melee. Which is probably why they did it instead of the much simpler "all models must remain with X" of all other models" approach: they wanted to make it extremely difficult to wrap more than one target, or to wrap any unit that hasn't lost the vast majority of its members.
6" consolidate is going to be a lot more important in 9th if you are actually trying to wrap stuff with units bigger than 5 models.
The big downside of the approach (aside from just making it harder to wrap) is that it makes combat even more technical and positioning-dependent than it was in 8th, meaning it takes even more time than it did before. If you want to wrap something you're going to have to painstakingly pay attention to every single model in the squad's precise position throughout each of the three moves you get as part of a charge. It's going to be a real headache, unless you just give up and stop trying to wrap in the first place and just accept that your unit is going to be blown off the table after one round of combat.
To take from previous editions: "[For a unit to be in Unit Coherency,] the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2″ horizontally and 6″ vertically. "
GW, you had coherency working fine before, why can't you just do it properly again?
Nevelon wrote: Do we know that coherency is required for CC? I seem to recall prior editions played it fast and loose while combat raged, but once things settled down you needed to muster the troops together before moving on.
You need to maintain coherency for ANY kind of move. Unless gw writes consolidiiation/pile in isn't some sort of move it applies there
'Must pile in/consolidate closer to nearest enemy' and coherency is going to be a hell of a leash.
They might change pile in/consolidate requirements, of course, but if they stay, going for aggressive moves to put more models in engagement range for extra attacks could end up costing a chunk of the unit, even if you don't take any losses from the enemy.
Nevelon wrote: Do we know that coherency is required for CC? I seem to recall prior editions played it fast and loose while combat raged, but once things settled down you needed to muster the troops together before moving on.
You need to maintain coherency for ANY kind of move. Unless gw writes consolidiiation/pile in isn't some sort of move it applies there
The new coherency rule specifically takes a time out to reference moving in the charge and fight phases. It definitely applies.
Edit:
Huh. That actually means aggressively engaging to get more attacks isn't actually a legal move. You can't even do it. If you have a 10 man blob of berserkers, Berserker Stan can't sweep around the edges of the enemy unit to kill more, he has to stay within 2" of Fred and George at all times- his unleashed rage hits a tether and he stops to chew scenery instead.
And coherency punishment happens at the end of the morale phase regardless of anything (whether they took casualties or did anything at all). Anyone out of formation simply vanishes from the universe. But technically speaking, only casualties can trigger it, because you literally can't move a unit in a way that it would trigger on its own. The move just cannot happen.
Yeah, you can't even make a movement that would take you out of coherency. It's going to be a huge task each combat just to determine who is able to move where to fight and who isn't. Unless you just go with the flow and never take units of more than 5 like the edition is clearly trying very hard to get you to do.
Welcome to 9th edition
Only units containing 5 models or less may apply.
But just because blast weapons will pay addition points for rules that will never trigger as they dont kick in below 6 models.
This is really feeling like it is going to be armies of 5 model units and 1 model units. Anything else is going to need to be rediculous to be worth the downsides.
The only real hope is that the requirement to move towards the nearest model when piling in and consolidating is relaxed. Otherwise the combination of having to maintain coherency with 2 models and also move closer to the closest model is really going to be an absolute nightmare to figure out.
As much as I rip on GW, I have a hard time believing even they would be stupid enough to enforce both coherency to 2 models and a requirement that you can only pile in and consolidate towards the closest model, rather than towards any model in the unit. I have to think even they can see how oppressive that would be.
Having done some tests with models, you can still daisy chain 25mm models as long as you keep them base to base or fairly close, it shouldn't pose too much trouble while in combat as long as you stay densely packed. I think we can safely write off wrapping/trapping a unit with one large unit this edition so we have to make peace with that. If we want to trap a unit we'd have to engage with several MSU for more freedom of movement, or a ridiculously large unit that can maintain coherency.
Above 32mm bases it could get harder, but otherwise just moving them in contact base to base to each other safely prevents any coherency shenanigans. We'll have a more dense and reduced threat bubble with large units though, as they can cover less ground.
Ice_can wrote: Welcome to 9th edition
Only units containing 5 models or less may apply.
But just because blast weapons will pay addition points for rules that will never trigger as they dont kick in below 6 models.
This is really feeling like it is going to be armies of 5 model units and 1 model units. Anything else is going to need to be rediculous to be worth the downsides.
For competitive tournament players, maybe.
For everyone else the game will probably be like it always has been. Play whatever you like and have some fun with it.
All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.
McGibs wrote: All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.
As I think some people have said - isn't the difference in AoS that you only have a 1" range (or loads vertically) but you only need to be in contact of one model?
In some ways I think it could be a better rule which achieves a similar purpose.
Some secondaries, probably more than we know, require a unit to perform an action of taking an objective. If the unit is wiped out it obviously fails to complete the mission.
5 man units are going to find it difficult to survive an entire enemy turn of shooting and assault.
My Daemons and Sisters will make short work of 5 man squads really quick. I'd be more intimidated to assault 20 ork boys trying to gain an objective than I would be of assaulting 5 Intercessors.
McGibs wrote: All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.
There are two considerations going on. One is the unit coherency rule puts a major leash on units with the 'if the move doesn't end in unit coherency, the move CANNOT be made' That's going to cause a lot of rewinds and recalculations. If your ork mob piles in, you need to recheck the positions of the orks on the ends, make sure they can actually be there, because you don't want to realize (or be told) at the wounds step that two of the orks can't actually be where they are because of the unit coherency so you need to redo all the attack sequences with however many fewer attacks.
Second consideration is you really need to bog down in details with coherence at the end of combat. A minor error (either in placement or casualty removal or morale removal) can mean half your unit snaps out of existence.
And on top of that, at 5 or smaller, you just don't have to care about any of this crap. Berserker Steve can swoop around the side of Berserker Fred and get to killing- he doesn't have to stand at the back and hold hands with Fred _and_ George anymore.
---
The AoS comparison isn't really accurate. Coherence with 1 other model is very different than coherence with 2.
McGibs wrote: All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.
Again, coherency in AOS is only drawn to one model. It's 1" instead of 2", but it's only to one model. This is fundamentally different from the 9th edition rule that draws to 2 models for units of 6 or more. It's a totally different ballgame. Try moving some models on a table if you don't believe me. It's just a matter of geometry. Having to draw lines to 2 other models for every model fundamentally changes the way your models can legitimately move.
Nobody would care about this if it was coherency to only 1 model like in AOS.
25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.
If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.
McGibs wrote: All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.
Again, coherency in AOS is only drawn to one model. It's 1" instead of 2", but it's only to one model. This is fundamentally different from the 9th edition rule that draws to 2 models for units of 6 or more. It's a totally different ballgame. Try moving some models on a table if you don't believe me.
Nobody would care about this if it was coherency to only 1 model like in AOS.
I don't care about coherency rule for 9th. The people making the biggest issue out of it, IMO, are the ones that abused conga lines to grab multiple objectives. Now you have to play in ranks, for the most part, so your conga lines aren't as wide.
How about taking more than one mob of 30 gretchen? or 30 termagants or 30 plaguebearers. I run 3 x 30 plaguebearers in my Daemons. I've never felt the need to conga line to grab multiple objectives, I just send out multiple PB units.
Plus we are forgetting that some secondaries require you to sit through an opponents entire phase to score that objective. If you want to game 9th edition to stretch your conga line out I'll just shoot the crap out of said unit, you will realize you cannot remove models in such a way, and so the (action) of taking said objective fails and I deny you VP. In the meantime my unit of 30 plaguebearers will most likely complete their (action) of objective taking and score me VP's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but games in 9th are fixed to 5 turns.
Nice change. It also forces people to play the mission from turn 3, not turn 4 or 5 hoping for a turn 6 or 7.
cuda1179 wrote: 25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.
If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.
Its worth noting that GW may be phasing out 25mm bases. Quite a few armies don't use them at all anymore, and even 'normal humans' have started creeping in on 28.5mm or 32mm (or higher, freaking Sisters characters) in the last year.
Repentia wearing only body gloves are on the 28.5 bases.
And the 'what are valid base sizes?' in 9th edition hasn't been raised yet. The old answer of 'whatever was originally in the box' doesn't seem OK anymore, since you're pointing out there is _very_ a notable game advantage for putting models on 32mm bases on 25mm instead.
McGibs wrote: All of this coherency stuff sounds pretty simmilar to how AoS handles it, and it's really not a big deal. Yes, you have to be more careful how you position and remove casualties, but it isn't mind-breaking rocket science like some of you seem to be making it out to be.
Again, coherency in AOS is only drawn to one model. It's 1" instead of 2", but it's only to one model. This is fundamentally different from the 9th edition rule that draws to 2 models for units of 6 or more. It's a totally different ballgame. Try moving some models on a table if you don't believe me.
Nobody would care about this if it was coherency to only 1 model like in AOS.
I don't care about coherency rule for 9th. The people making the biggest issue out of it, IMO, are the ones that abused conga lines to grab multiple objectives. Now you have to play in ranks, for the most part, so your conga lines aren't as wide.
How about taking more than one mob of 30 gretchen? or 30 termagants or 30 plaguebearers. I run 3 x 30 plaguebearers in my Daemons. I've never felt the need to conga line to grab multiple objectives, I just send out multiple PB units.
Plus we are forgetting that some secondaries require you to sit through an opponents entire phase to score that objective. If you want to game 9th edition to stretch your conga line out I'll just shoot the crap out of said unit, you will realize you cannot remove models in such a way, and so the (action) of taking said objective fails and I deny you VP. In the meantime my unit of 30 plaguebearers will most likely complete their (action) of objective taking and score me VP's.
You will care about it if you ever try to use a combat unit of more than 6 models, because it radically limits how you can move them. Unless you're one of those guys who just smushes a bunch of models into base to base contact with the enemy every time you charge.
The new coherency rules don't stop a unit of 30 from holding multiple objectives. That's still totally possible.
What they do do is put a huge limitation on how you can move your models during combats.
A lot of people here are reacting as if the change is not a big deal, when in fact it is the single biggest gameplay change announced so far. The idea that it only impacts daisy-chains is simply wrong. If you respond to this change with "meh, won't affect me because I don't daisy-chain" that is objectively wrong. It affects everyone playing the game, in very significant ways, unless neither you nor your opponent has any squads with more than 5 models.
cuda1179 wrote: 25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.
If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.
Its worth noting that GW may be phasing out 25mm bases. Quite a few armies don't use them at all anymore, and even 'normal humans' have started creeping in on 28.5mm or 32mm (or higher, freaking Sisters characters) in the last year.
Repentia wearing only body gloves are on the 28.5 bases.
And the 'what are valid base sizes?' in 9th edition hasn't been raised yet. The old answer of 'whatever was originally in the box' doesn't seem OK anymore, since you're pointing out there is _very_ a notable game advantage for putting models on 32mm bases on 25mm instead.
IDK, 25mm is still the standard for Imperial Guard, Tau, Genestealer Cult, Eldar, and Dark Eldar.
The new plastic banshees were moved to 28mm. The reason the rest of the eldar line is still on 25mm is because those models are literally decades old in many cases.
It is pretty clear that for new releases GW is moving away from 25mm bases.
Also the only stuff on 25mm for GSC is neophyte squads.
yukishiro1 wrote: The new plastic banshees were moved to 28mm. The reason the rest of the eldar line is still on 25mm is because those models are literally decades old in many cases.
It is pretty clear that for new releases GW is moving away from 25mm bases.
Also the only stuff on 25mm for GSC is neophyte squads.
It really just comes down to the model itself. If it looks better on a bigger base that is what it will get.
cuda1179 wrote: 25mm based models are pretty easy to maintain coherency. In a strait line a 25mm model can be within 2 inches of 6 other models, 3 to the right and 3 to the left.
If you just blob them together, a 25mm based model can be in coherency with 36 other models.
Its worth noting that GW may be phasing out 25mm bases. Quite a few armies don't use them at all anymore, and even 'normal humans' have started creeping in on 28.5mm or 32mm (or higher, freaking Sisters characters) in the last year.
Repentia wearing only body gloves are on the 28.5 bases.
And the 'what are valid base sizes?' in 9th edition hasn't been raised yet. The old answer of 'whatever was originally in the box' doesn't seem OK anymore, since you're pointing out there is _very_ a notable game advantage for putting models on 32mm bases on 25mm instead.
IDK, 25mm is still the standard for Imperial Guard, Tau, Genestealer Cult, Eldar, and Dark Eldar.
Yeah, but I've got a berserker squad that was on 25mm until literally 4 months ago when I rebased them. If 'what was originally in the box' is still OK, I apparently made a big mistake, because I could fit more models into engagement range with fewer coherency worries. And use a fluffier 8 man unit with fewer concerns.
GSC is also weird, since genestealers have been on 25mm for decades, acolytes are only 32mm, and neophytes are weirdly split. Despite the fact that genestealers are impractical to squeeze together in base to base without playing arm tetris, technically you can. Which makes them better for engagement and coherency shenanigans, if nothing else.
The simple fact of bad touching will have more impact (except vs ultrasmurfs), with fly fall back shoot going away. Throwing a trash mob of ten will be my way to go, with overwatch gone they will make it to combat more likely, take the punch, then die but after having Wasted some shots along the way.
Perhaps something along these lines I dunno, 6 point cultists make me think that trash mobs of ten will be too expensive but who knows...
Guess two trash mobs of 5 will always be better at that though. Like 5 kabalytes bad touching something Getting close to the objective they are defending hiding in dense terrain, perhaps might be worth it I dunno
Some secondaries, probably more than we know, require a unit to perform an action of taking an objective. If the unit is wiped out it obviously fails to complete the mission.
5 man units are going to find it difficult to survive an entire enemy turn of shooting and assault.
My Daemons and Sisters will make short work of 5 man squads really quick. I'd be more intimidated to assault 20 ork boys trying to gain an objective than I would be of assaulting 5 Intercessors.
Are people saying this really just consistently misunderstanding that "A turn" means "YOUR turn" and not "your turn and your opponent's turn"? That's a "round" and the action rules we've seen so far all use "Turn".
And we also have people saying that people spread hordes out to score multiple objectives. Which has been illegal all 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
addnid wrote: The simple fact of bad touching will have more impact (except vs ultrasmurfs), with fly fall back shoot going away. Throwing a trash mob of ten will be my way to go, with overwatch gone they will make it to combat more likely, take the punch, then die but after having Wasted some shots along the way.
Perhaps something along these lines I dunno, 6 point cultists make me think that trash mobs of ten will be too expensive but who knows...
Guess two trash mobs of 5 will always be better at that though. Like 5 kabalytes bad touching something Getting close to the objective they are defending hiding in dense terrain, perhaps might be worth it I dunno
People already take skitarii, harlequins, fire warriors, kabalites wyches etc in 5-man squads.
In 9th, with overwatch gone, and all these rules gaking on 6+? You're just never going to take squads that are min 10. You'll always use min 5 squads, 100% of the time. No reason not to.
RIP orks, RIP guardians, RIP daemons, RIP cultists, RIP neophytes. You were already suboptimal and only used as CP batteries.
Someone must have tripointed a GW employee's Leman Russ with cultists one time and he went back to his office grumbling "I'll fix you" while the bright eyed excited intern walked out of the planning office door with the shiny new Iron Hands supplement ready for the printers.
Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.
GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.
Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.
GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.
A unit of Bullgryns or Tyranid Warriors is still going to be a much more durable unit for that purpose than an Infantry Squad or blob of Termagants.
I liked the reveal about actions just on the face of it, but at 2K points, any army that can't remove 30 T3 or T4 wounds with marginal saves has already lost. I can't see hordes or ten-model light infantry squads coming back just to perform actions or hold objectives.
What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.
Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.
You will probably still see some 10-man+ troops squads that are designed to just sit on an objective all game and score points off it. Stuff like wracks that are very points-efficient in terms of their durability.
A 5-turn game makes gunlines less powerful because they have less time to table the other army. If you take points-efficient units and plop them on objectives it doesn't really matter if your opponent can shoot them off, the clock is ticking down and you're scoring and he isn't and if you can significantly outscore him on T2 and T3 you win the game even if he tables you on T4.
Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.
GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.
haha, if all objectives are scored after a full round of holding them then this'll just be Tablehammer. There does not exist a unit in 40k that can stand up to the ludicrous firepower gunlines currently put out. If you bring 90 ork boyz, maybe, MAYBE a model from one of them survives so that you can Endless Green Tide it back onto the table and have 30 boyz top of turn 1.
Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.
GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.
haha, if all objectives are scored after a full round of holding them then this'll just be Tablehammer. There does not exist a unit in 40k that can stand up to the ludicrous firepower gunlines currently put out. If you bring 90 ork boyz, maybe, MAYBE a model from one of them survives so that you can Endless Green Tide it back onto the table and have 30 boyz top of turn 1.
I believe 'Raise The Banners High' is the rule in question...
Yeah, the banner secondary actually encourages MSU spam, because a unit of any size can do it, it's automatically completed at the end of your turn, and it stops the unit from doing anything else. So you'd rather have two MSU of 5 than one of 10, because that way one can do the action while the other functions.
Also, RAW, you can even raise the banner if your opponent controls the objective, and you'll still get 1VP from it - though the banner will immediately be destroyed at the start of your opponent's turn, you still get one tick of it.
Yeah definable looks like secondary missions are scored in your tunn regardless but primary missions are scored in your comand phase ie after the enemy's turn(atleats in Combat Patrol missions), ouch. Though it does mean picking the correct secondary missions is going to be very important.
That Siphon Power secondary looks like a trap if I've ever seen one, lol. With a 5 turn game you only get 4 chances to score, and you'd need to do it on 2 objectives every turn plus on 3 objectives one turn, just to max it, and all they need to do to stop you is get one of their units within range of one of those objectives for one of those turns and you're not maxing any more because you can't start it on the next turn (unless you can somehow kill that unit in your movement phase).
yukishiro1 wrote: That Siphon Power secondary looks like a trap if I've ever seen one, lol. With a 5 turn game you only get 4 chances to score, and you'd need to do it on 2 objectives every turn plus on 3 objectives one turn, all game just to max it, and all they need to do to stop you is get one of their units within range of one of those objectives for one of those turns and you're not maxing any more because you can't start it on the next turn (unless you can somehow kill that unit in your movement phase).
It's less of a trap than the banners one as you can not score round 1 so you only get round 2, 3, 4 & 5 to score with a bonus 1 for having it at end of the game, you'll need to control 3 objectives for 5 rounds to max it out.
For the banner one you don't need to control the objectives and your unit doesn't need to survive, you just need to have a unit close enough to raise it on your turn and you get a point. But yeah, it's also a trap.
Unless I guess every single secondary is designed to be basically impossible to max.
edit: Oops no I misread it, you can't start it if there's any enemy units within range of the objective. So yeah, it's also a huge trap.
yukishiro1 wrote: That Siphon Power secondary looks like a trap if I've ever seen one, lol. With a 5 turn game you only get 4 chances to score, and you'd need to do it on 2 objectives every turn plus on 3 objectives one turn, just to max it, and all they need to do to stop you is get one of their units within range of one of those objectives for one of those turns and you're not maxing any more because you can't start it on the next turn (unless you can somehow kill that unit in your movement phase).
It's for a 500 point game, so probably more achievable than expected.
yukishiro1 wrote: That Siphon Power secondary looks like a trap if I've ever seen one, lol. With a 5 turn game you only get 4 chances to score, and you'd need to do it on 2 objectives every turn plus on 3 objectives one turn, just to max it, and all they need to do to stop you is get one of their units within range of one of those objectives for one of those turns and you're not maxing any more because you can't start it on the next turn (unless you can somehow kill that unit in your movement phase).
It's for a 500 point game, so probably more achievable than expected.
You really thing in a 500 point game you'll have 2 units able to do nothing but score secondary missions VP with for the entire game?
Ice_can wrote: Welcome to 9th edition
Only units containing 5 models or less may apply.
But just because blast weapons will pay addition points for rules that will never trigger as they dont kick in below 6 models.
This is really feeling like it is going to be armies of 5 model units and 1 model units. Anything else is going to need to be rediculous to be worth the downsides.
That’s what I’ve been laughing at too. Blast weapons are a trap. If you take them on your vehicle, you make yourself weaker. You can’t shoot in melee anymore. But you have to pay extra points so that you can’t shoot in melee anymore. You’ll get your extra attacks against some unit once in a blue moon, but against some non-competitive horde list you probably would’ve won anyway, even without your three or four extra hits. You didn’t need those hits in 8th, so you sure as heck won’t need in 9th, because all your stuff is deadlier already. Absolutely nobody in their right mind will choose blast weapons, and pay for them, unless they have no options (poor Night Spinners).
Clearly GW had some funny vision how the game would play and meta settle, but players will just say no, I’ll play with my 13 tanks or 5 man squads of Marines.
No, that's the 2000 point mission, not the 500 point mission. If it was the 500 point mission it would be even harder, because you definitely aren't going to have two units that can sit around all game doing nothing.
It's not clear that that tactic will carry over. There are no command point benefits from taking detachments anymore - instead, there is a cost - so it's not clear that you can increase something that doesn't exist any more.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not clear that that tactic will carry over. There are no command point benefits from taking detachments anymore - instead, there is a cost - so it's not clear that you can increase something that doesn't exist any more.
But it is very likely indeed , due to the fact that vigilus carries over which included rc which habe advance and Charge aswell as a Bonus to cp+ Double Bonus for cp through csm as trait.
This is why some people talk about "baggage carried over"
Was thinking i wonder if the tadpole style formation will be a thing to keep the conga buffs to a char. You can still pretty much do it for big units witg upto a 19" line without much fear of coherency checks.
Just remove models from the bulk of the unit, when it gets down to the line you are pretty much at 5 models so they wont die
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not clear that that tactic will carry over. There are no command point benefits from taking detachments anymore - instead, there is a cost - so it's not clear that you can increase something that doesn't exist any more.
But it is very likely indeed , due to the fact that vigilus carries over which included rc which habe advance and Charge aswell as a Bonus to cp+ Double Bonus for cp through csm as trait.
This is why some people talk about "baggage carried over"
Remember Red Corsairs just get an extra CP for existing so you really don't need the Chaos Marines there.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not clear that that tactic will carry over. There are no command point benefits from taking detachments anymore - instead, there is a cost - so it's not clear that you can increase something that doesn't exist any more.
But it is very likely indeed , due to the fact that vigilus carries over which included rc which habe advance and Charge aswell as a Bonus to cp+ Double Bonus for cp through csm as trait.
This is why some people talk about "baggage carried over"
Remember Red Corsairs just get an extra CP for existing so you really don't need the Chaos Marines there.
Meh am willing to bet that csm will rise to 13-14 PPM at which point yes i'd rather pay -5 --10 pts more then cultists and not get whacked by morale or coherency or blast.....
Also Slots for weaponry ...
yukishiro1 wrote: RAW it doesn't, because the mechanic it modifiers - "Command Benefits" - no longer exists in 9th.
I wouldn't be surprised if they change the wording via an errata to allow it to carry over, but RAW it doesn't.
Errr... what? The Red Corsairs trait works perfectly fine in 9th edition.
Imperium Nihilus - Vigilus Ablaze, Page 197 wrote:[...] In addition, if a Detachment contains three or more units with this trait, that Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 1 Command Point. That Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 3 Command Points instead if it contains three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with this trait.
So a Red Corsairs Battalion now has the Command Benefit of "+4 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment.", or if you have three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with the trait, "+6 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment."
yukishiro1 wrote: RAW it doesn't, because the mechanic it modifiers - "Command Benefits" - no longer exists in 9th.
I wouldn't be surprised if they change the wording via an errata to allow it to carry over, but RAW it doesn't.
Errr... what?
The Red Corsairs trait works perfectly fine in 9th edition.
Imperium Nihilus - Vigilus Ablaze, Page 197 wrote:[...] In addition, if a Detachment contains three or more units with this trait, that Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 1 Command Point. That Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 3 Command Points instead if it contains three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with this trait.
So a Red Corsairs Battalion now has the Command Benefit of "+4 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment.", or if you have three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with the trait, "+6 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment."
Doesnt that RAW mean that they can onky ckaim the extra CP on the warlords detachment though?
Ice_can wrote: Doesnt that RAW mean that they can onky ckaim the extra CP on the warlords detachment though?
Correct. What the rule does is different, but it doesn't mean "RAW it doesn't work". Much like certain other rules regarding certain weapon types that don't technically do anything even though from a technical standpoint they work just fine, they just don't do what you want them to do, just because a rule doesn't do what it is "meant" to, or does what you "want" it to, doesn't mean the "RAW doesn't work".
Ice_can wrote: Doesnt that RAW mean that they can onky ckaim the extra CP on the warlords detachment though?
Correct.
What the rule does is different, but it doesn't mean "RAW it doesn't work". Much like certain other rules regarding certain weapon types that don't technically do anything even though from a technical standpoint they work just fine, they just don't do what you want them to do, just because a rule doesn't do what it is "meant" to, or does what you "want" it to, doesn't mean the "RAW doesn't work".
Actually the RAW interpretation feels alot more balanced than them being able to have 3 free battalions.
yukishiro1 wrote: That Siphon Power secondary looks like a trap if I've ever seen one, lol. With a 5 turn game you only get 4 chances to score, and you'd need to do it on 2 objectives every turn plus on 3 objectives one turn, just to max it, and all they need to do to stop you is get one of their units within range of one of those objectives for one of those turns and you're not maxing any more because you can't start it on the next turn (unless you can somehow kill that unit in your movement phase).
It's for a 500 point game, so probably more achievable than expected.
You really thing in a 500 point game you'll have 2 units able to do nothing but score secondary missions VP with for the entire game?
I'm sure there are some armies that could, but generally no.
Ice_can wrote: Doesnt that RAW mean that they can onky ckaim the extra CP on the warlords detachment though?
Correct.
What the rule does is different, but it doesn't mean "RAW it doesn't work". Much like certain other rules regarding certain weapon types that don't technically do anything even though from a technical standpoint they work just fine, they just don't do what you want them to do, just because a rule doesn't do what it is "meant" to, or does what you "want" it to, doesn't mean the "RAW doesn't work".
Dont see why it does not apply to all of them. The detachment has a title 'Command benifits'
the rule is:
'that Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 1 Command Point. That Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 3 CommandPoints instead if it contains three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with this trait.'
Ice_can wrote: Doesnt that RAW mean that they can onky ckaim the extra CP on the warlords detachment though?
Correct.
What the rule does is different, but it doesn't mean "RAW it doesn't work". Much like certain other rules regarding certain weapon types that don't technically do anything even though from a technical standpoint they work just fine, they just don't do what you want them to do, just because a rule doesn't do what it is "meant" to, or does what you "want" it to, doesn't mean the "RAW doesn't work".
Dont see why it does not apply to all of them. The detachment has a title 'Command benifits'
the rule is:
'that Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 1 Command Point. That Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 3 CommandPoints instead if it contains three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with this trait.'
Yeah Bacon is right, I didn't realize that the phrase "command benefits" was used to describe what you get from having the warlord in that detachment. Since the phrase is the same, it'd work for that.
So you do get the +1/+3CP from your warlord's detachment, but not from any other detachments.
You don't get it for the others because there is no "Command Benefits" on those detachments. The only way (that we know of so far) to get Command Benefits in 9th is if your warlord is in that detachment. If you get Command Benefits, you can then increase it with the Red Corsairs rule. But you have to get benefits to begin with to be able to increase it. Even if it said: "Command Benefits, 0CP or 3CP if your warlord is in this detachment" you'd be ok. But it doesn't, so it doesn't work.
I think the move to 5 turns is good too, at least in combination with the smaller board size. It gives gunlines less time to table the opponent, which lowers their relative power.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think the move to 5 turns is good too, at least in combination with the smaller board size. It gives gunlines less time to table the opponent, which lowers their relative power.
Also, even though you mentioned reserves being affected in a negative way by this, I think that it makes reserves more impactful. Sure, you may bring them on in T3 with 2 turns to go, but that also only gives your opponent 2 turns to deal with them. They can show up and do what you had in mind for them, whether it is capture an objective or disrupt your opponent's plans, and your opponent only has 2 turns to recover and/or dislodge them. I think we may see more reserves coming in later than T2 in 9th.
BaconCatBug wrote: So a Red Corsairs Battalion now has the Command Benefit of "+4 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment.", or if you have three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with the trait, "+6 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment."
No, it's just the way that an old rule (Red Corsairs and their extra CP) interacts with a new rule (what "Command Benefits" are has changed).
Before you could do two Red Corsair Battalions for a 19 CP (3 standard + 5 battalion + 5 battalion + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #1 + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #2). Now "Command Benefits", from the wording we've seen, are tied to your Warlord. Thus you can only gain the +3CP for being Red Corsairs in the formation your Warlord sits within.
No, it's just the way that an old rule (Red Corsairs and their extra CP) interacts with a new rule (what "Command Benefits" are has changed).
Before you could do two Red Corsair Battalions for a 19 CP (3 standard + 5 battalion + 5 battalion + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #1 + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #2). Now "Command Benefits", from the wording we've seen, are tied to your Warlord. Thus you can only gain the +3CP for being Red Corsairs in the formation your Warlord sits within.
Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.
GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.
A unit of Bullgryns or Tyranid Warriors is still going to be a much more durable unit for that purpose than an Infantry Squad or blob of Termagants.
I liked the reveal about actions just on the face of it, but at 2K points, any army that can't remove 30 T3 or T4 wounds with marginal saves has already lost. I can't see hordes or ten-model light infantry squads coming back just to perform actions or hold objectives.
That really, really depends on terrain, line of sight, etc. Currently you can get 30 cultists for 3 bullgryns. Will it be the same with the new points? No idea, but you need to cause 29 wounds to ensure a wipe of a 30 man and 9 for 3 bullgryns. It's a simple task to get cultists a -1 and a 5++ as well.
yukishiro1 wrote: What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.
Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.
Or we could just get a combat rule that allows us to engage with every model within 1" of a model in engagement range or something.
yukishiro1 wrote: What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.
Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.
Or we could just get a combat rule that allows us to engage with every model within 1" of a model in engagement range or something.
Or instead of made up rules, we can focus on real ones. [Seriously, that's how you start false rumours, and confuse rule discussions, especially with how scattershot and disorganized actual information is at this point.]
Here's a fun one: despite ignoring aircraft for almost all purposes during movement, you can't end _any_ move on an aircraft's base (sensible) or within the engagement range of enemy aircraft (that neither the aircraft nor the ground models really engage with). So you've got a rather large no-go zone that you can just park next to your units, and create a melee-free zone. The aircraft is free to zip off in a normal move the next turn, but you've got a bubble of 4.7" x 3.6" with at least a 0.5" engagement range all around. None of which can have any enemies in it. Best case, you can prevent charges altogether, worst case, you can funnel and prevent them from engaging with any but a few models and block off parts of your unit from pile in moves.
In theory, models with fly can engage the aircraft, but ground units? They're completely blocked from their final move positions by supersonic aircraft momentarily passing by overhead.
yukishiro1 wrote: What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.
Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.
Or we could just get a combat rule that allows us to engage with every model within 1" of a model in engagement range or something.
Or instead of made up rules, we can focus on real ones. [Seriously, that's how you start false rumours, and confuse rule discussions, especially with how scattershot and disorganized actual information is at this point.]
No one was trying to make up rules. The point was more that consolidation rules are not the only way GW could "fix" the way larger units work in melee.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Is it that games end once Turn 5 is over, or is that when you roll to see if the game keeps going (rather than turn 6).
Unknown, but given the way it was mentioned, it appears to be 5 and done.
That makes sense for a Matched Play/tournament-style game. You want a fixed length with very specific scoring parameters so that all rankings can be apples to apples. So far, it looks like the scoring will be:
Primary Objective (60 Points): Up to 15 points a turn for Turns 2-5
Secondary Objective (45 Points): Up to 15 points per game for three different Secondary Objectives
Total Available: VP 105
60:45 weighs secondaries really heavily, I'm not sure that's great. I guess it depends on how many secondaries you can take that allow you to not play the mission.
yukishiro1 wrote: 60:45 weighs secondaries really heavily, I'm not sure that's great. I guess it depends on how many secondaries you can take that allow you to not play the mission.
It seems like there's something for every type of army, but you can't go all that route. Additionally, there seems to be a lot of opportunity to interrupt secondaries.
I do imagine i'll be using Psychic Interrogation, but then I bet that means I need to successfully cast a spell on an enemy character every turn. That may very well be hard to do.
Don't see any fw specific weapons. Guess just like aircraft they'll be in the new fw books. If they ever decide to let us see them. The wait is killing me. Can't they just give us a little leak?
So looking for Tyranids, basically everything with random shots that is not a flamer is a blast according to this, with the exception of the Shockcannon for the Hive Guards. No Carnifex shooting plasma in combat
Interesting the haywire cannon is on that list but haywire blasters aren't, and more generally that assault weapons are on the list too, not just heavy.
Some secondaries, probably more than we know, require a unit to perform an action of taking an objective. If the unit is wiped out it obviously fails to complete the mission.
5 man units are going to find it difficult to survive an entire enemy turn of shooting and assault.
My Daemons and Sisters will make short work of 5 man squads really quick. I'd be more intimidated to assault 20 ork boys trying to gain an objective than I would be of assaulting 5 Intercessors.
But unless those actions are for PRIMARY objectives MSU has simple option. Don't pick secondaries that require actions. Secondaries are selectable and we already know secondaries will have non-action ones.
Watched the Vanguard Tactics video about "coherency". Took me 5 minutes to understand it.
They did a very good job covering various conga lines, how terrain interacts with the coherency rules and what the best method is to remove models without breaking coherency.
I think people are screeching harder than they need to.
Skared Cast also put up a bat rep using the new coherency rules. Didn't seem to make the game slower or harder to understand.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't know why I thought that GW would put frag missiles/grenades but not krak missiles/grenades on there. Don't know why I thought that...
And the Venom Cannon huh? I guess they were afraid of Hive Tyrants just being too damned powerful. Can't wait for the price on that gun to go up.
venom canon had a blast template back before 8th edition. assuming this is pretty GW mostly just translated every blast or small blast template gun into having the blast rule.
the intreasting thing is if this is true it means my guess that frag storm launchers are blast weapons. hopefully GW doesn't tweek their price points though, they where already not worth if over storm bolters.
I'm more surprised that both versions of the Exorcist have Blast. I expected it for the Conflag version, but not the regular one.
Not that it really helps it (the regular version) that much mind you. It already has a minimum of 3 shots, and its primary targets never come in units of more than 10.
rail gun has two firemodes, the first one is a heavy 1 shot used for dealing with tanks etc, and other is a scatter munitions shot that has 1d6 shots and is weaker aimed to sue against infantry etc. the blast thus impacts the submunitions
According to a playtester posting on /tg these are the new points for some of the space marine models. There is no way of verifying this so take it with a grain of salt.
yukishiro1 wrote: What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.
Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.
Or we could just get a combat rule that allows us to engage with every model within 1" of a model in engagement range or something.
Or instead of made up rules, we can focus on real ones. [Seriously, that's how you start false rumours, and confuse rule discussions, especially with how scattershot and disorganized actual information is at this point.]
Here's a fun one: despite ignoring aircraft for almost all purposes during movement, you can't end _any_ move on an aircraft's base (sensible) or within the engagement range of enemy aircraft (that neither the aircraft nor the ground models really engage with). So you've got a rather large no-go zone that you can just park next to your units, and create a melee-free zone. The aircraft is free to zip off in a normal move the next turn, but you've got a bubble of 4.7" x 3.6" with at least a 0.5" engagement range all around. None of which can have any enemies in it. Best case, you can prevent charges altogether, worst case, you can funnel and prevent them from engaging with any but a few models and block off parts of your unit from pile in moves.
In theory, models with fly can engage the aircraft, but ground units? They're completely blocked from their final move positions by supersonic aircraft momentarily passing by overhead.
It’s a wargame. There have to be some concessions to real-world practicality. No one wants their model broken/damaged by their opponent clumsily plonking their army all over it/it’s base. It’s not hard to understand why the rules are like this. It’s not a simulator, it’s an overgrown board game at the end of the day.
It’s a wargame. There have to be some concessions to real-world practicality. No one wants their model broken/damaged by their opponent clumsily plonking their army all over it/it’s base. It’s not hard to understand why the rules are like this. It’s not a simulator, it’s an overgrown board game at the end of the day.
Yeah. AOS had plonk into top of base situation at one point(literally only way certain models could even attack certain models...). Unsurprisingly base to base mearurement became super popular house rule
Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.
BaconCatBug wrote: Some points leaks, might be real, might not be. ATV are 80 points base, I am kind of sceptical because of that
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
another reason to be skeptical is the ATV and turret are listed as part of the indomatus set, but they're specificly NOT from the indomatus set and are something else coming down the line (presumably with a codex and a multipart release of the indomatus units)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
diepotato47 wrote: Interesting that the ATV and Turret are listed with the Indomitus box...
makes me IMMEDIATLY skeptical about that being legit
The chaplain might be part of the biker box, like the MA big mek is part of the MANz box. It probably won't be much more than a fancy weapon and an additional head.
I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.
PiñaColada wrote: Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.
That sounds waaaaay too cheap for the bolt version considering how intercessors are costed...
jivardi wrote: I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.
You could just, ya know, not use Primarchs in a Matched Play game. If you want to use Primarch, you pay a CP penalty, it's that simple.
jivardi wrote: I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.
You could just, ya know, not use Primarchs in a Matched Play game. If you want to use Primarch, you pay a CP penalty, it's that simple.
I also think that people should auto-lose games for fielding models I don't like. For example, every primaris marine should cost one CP
Quick math check, and based on not knowing FW point changes nor the changes to melee weapons and wargear... My Phobos heavy fun Carcharodon list idea just went from 1958 to 2205.
(Will be different if melee weapons have also changed and camo cloaks and grav chutes have also changed).
PiñaColada wrote: Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.
That sounds waaaaay too cheap for the bolt version considering how intercessors are costed...
Boltstorm aggressors are 45ppm. The fragstorm grenade launcher is 5. Flamestorm aggressors are 40ppm.
So, if my math is correct:
Indomitus comes in at 1085 points for Marines (their Wargear looks to be included in the points listed)
If you buy one each of the Chaplain on Bike, ATV and Turret you get to 1485.
Not a bad haul for an edition launch, if these numbers are correct.
Edit, my math was not correct, derp. Updated numbers.
PiñaColada wrote: Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.
That sounds waaaaay too cheap for the bolt version considering how intercessors are costed...
Boltstorm aggressors are 45ppm. The fragstorm grenade launcher is 5. Flamestorm aggressors are 40ppm.
You're right! I forgot that their extra shots don't come out of the gauntlets. In all honesty, it still sounds a bit too cheap IMO (I'd say 50ppm is where I'd place them) considering the, quite frankly, annoying amount of shots those guys spew out but at least there's some difference in cost.
If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.
Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.
However they are 15/20!
So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.
Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...
EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU either GW blunder or the romulan memes are coming out
jivardi wrote: I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.
You could just, ya know, not use Primarchs in a Matched Play game. If you want to use Primarch, you pay a CP penalty, it's that simple.
Weren't you one of the posters who was complaining about having to pay for extra detachments?
If you want to soup you pay a penalty, it's that simple.
Latro_ wrote: If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.
Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.
However they are 15/20!
So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.
Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...
EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU
Maybe, but is there any Infantry that can use a Twin Heavy Bolter? If not, 10/15 points for a Heavy Bolter, and 30 for a Twin Heavy Bolter, does make sense.
Latro_ wrote: If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.
Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.
However they are 15/20!
So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.
Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...
EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU
Maybe, but is there any Infantry that can use a Twin Heavy Bolter? If not, 10/15 points for a Heavy Bolter, and 30 for a Twin Heavy Bolter, does make sense.
It would if it wasnt 17pts now.... not sure whats so great about a twin heavy bolter to nearly double its cost but keep a twin lascannon the same...
Latro_ wrote: If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.
Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.
However they are 15/20!
So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.
Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...
EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU
Maybe, but is there any Infantry that can use a Twin Heavy Bolter? If not, 10/15 points for a Heavy Bolter, and 30 for a Twin Heavy Bolter, does make sense.
Chaos doesn't have twin HB's and SM aswell to my knowledge on infantry, so yeah, that might be the vehicle chasis tax some weapons have to pay.
otoh chaos has the reaper AC which is basically a double AC on infantry, at the same price because damage but still,if we manage to get a hold on that if people would leak that and you'd have 2 costs for the reaper then that could be used as a comparison point?
