So here's hoping the shift that balance in other ways.
Support their assault by charging your Assault Intercessors at the same time, and give everything buffs from the aura abilities of your Primaris Lieutenant and Bladeguard Ancient.
In other news they posted a bunch of PL lists. The CSM is almost the same points as before - this is like 460 now and ~440 under this PL.
The marines are 500 points. I presume the Assault Intercessors will be 100. The LT we'll keep at 65, Ancient at 70, and Vets like Vitrix @ 35 for 105. That puts 3 bikes @ 160, which is likely too high so those other units will come up. It seems odd that CSM seems to be staying the same and marines take a good hit. Am I missing something?
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's because they aren't fixing any of our traits or units. They've basically decided that csm are cheaper, inferior, Bargain Basement Marines.
Also, auras need to go away. Thankfully, the Eighth Legion has a stratagem for that.
Yea, though is it scaled properly with Primaris now? It may be. But then Cultists are 6 -- are they benefiting from something else greatly? Still too much missing from the big picture here.
You will take the rerolls and forget the detachments.
But then your list building suffers in some respect. Most marine armies run on way more than 3 HQs and a Brigade forces them into other units they may not want.
Reroll 1s are fine, it's full rerolls that are problematic, and in particular the ridiculous full reroll 6" bubble that the chapter master trait gives.
You will take the rerolls and forget the detachments.
But then your list building suffers in some respect. Most marine armies run on way more than 3 HQs and a Brigade forces them into other units they may not want.
I don't think it suffers remotely enough. Have you seen how many units marines have? Against a -1 to hit, the vanilla chapter master is a 50% increase in firepower. You can't get that anywhere else in the codex.
GW has stated that all models points cost will increase in 9th, but even a 1 point increase is an increase.
Interestingly, the Chaos Space Marine army is the same PL in this sample list as it is now. However, it is also only 363 points. That's a lot of space for points increases on those models. Also, not having actually PL per unit, there is lots of flex space in that list for units PL and Points to change.
Correction: I forgot to add the second Obliterator to the list. CSM List is currently 28 PL and 458 points.
More interesting is that the Genestealer Cult list is currently PL 26 versus the 22 shown, and clocks in at 479 points. If it is only 22 PL in 9th, that indicates a points value closer to 430-450 points. If the value of models goes up, the value of some upgrades may be going down in 9th, at least for this list.
I don't think it suffers remotely enough. Have you seen how many units marines have? Against a -1 to hit, the vanilla chapter master is a 50% increase in firepower. You can't get that anywhere else in the codex.
Coverage matters. Chapter master, LT, and one other HQ does not cover a ton with more mobile missions.
I don't think it suffers remotely enough. Have you seen how many units marines have? Against a -1 to hit, the vanilla chapter master is a 50% increase in firepower. You can't get that anywhere else in the codex.
Coverage matters. Chapter master, LT, and one other HQ does not cover a ton with more mobile missions.
But doesn't matter enough. That's the problem. It's that crazy.
Even if I agreed with you, it just puts the snowflake chapters in an even worse position.
Interestingly, the Chaos Space Marine army is the same PL in this sample list as it is now. However, it is also only 363 points. That's a lot of space for points increases on those models. Also, not having actually PL per unit, there is lots of flex space in that list for units PL and Points to change.
Hmm... The CSM list has little upgrade flex in PL, so --
Even with a nerf to Chapter Master there are a good number of units in the Marine dex that are far, far too cheap currently. Even without taking into account CM or any stratagems and chapter tactics, these units are costed so low that they are a massive problem. But you add those things in and they become ridiculous.
Assault Centurions are so absurd that they're easily worth their points even if you were to ignore the drills and never get them into CC.
I would assume that they're just explicitly codifying two choices for 'you have started your turn in melee': Fall Back, or stay where you are and shoot Pistols.
catbarf wrote: I would assume that they're just explicitly codifying two choices for 'you have started your turn in melee': Fall Back, or stay where you are and shoot Pistols.
Seems like a weird term for that. Almost feel like its a +1 to hit for not moving sort of thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also that blurb kills the idea of Fallback moving to end of Shooting (not that it was likely anyway).
Interestingly, the Chaos Space Marine army is the same PL in this sample list as it is now. However, it is also only 363 points. That's a lot of space for points increases on those models. Also, not having actually PL per unit, there is lots of flex space in that list for units PL and Points to change.
Hmm... The CSM list has little upgrade flex in PL, so --
459 total. 22 PL is 440. So, theoretically the CSM could go up 1 point each, but their PL stays.
If MoP is 90ish then he's 5 PL. Oblits could be 100 and still 5 PL. VC will be above 100, so 6 PL. That leaves just 1 PL for the CSM.
I'm so confused. They could be rounding PL down now, too?
Correction to my prior post: I forgot to add the second Obliterator to the list. CSM List is currently 28 PL and 458 points. That's very interesting should points values go up on all units while the PL drops for this force. That doesn't really make sense, unless they are rounding down on PL like you suggested.
Quick guess:
MP 90 - PL 4?
VC 120 - PL 6?
Oblits - 200 for 2 PL 10?
That's 20 PL for 410 points and leaves only 2 PL for the CSM. Somebody here is getting a discount or their list is wrong.
I've been saying this for a while now. GW is actually doubling down on a lot of the mechanics that are dragging out game length and causing problems. Welcome to 9th. It will take longer per game, and be significantly more complex, while also keeping a lot of the actual problems from 8th (and, from what we've seen, expanding on them).
Interestingly, the Chaos Space Marine army is the same PL in this sample list as it is now. However, it is also only 363 points. That's a lot of space for points increases on those models. Also, not having actually PL per unit, there is lots of flex space in that list for units PL and Points to change.
Hmm... The CSM list has little upgrade flex in PL, so --
459 total. 22 PL is 440. So, theoretically the CSM could go up 1 point each, but their PL stays.
If MoP is 90ish then he's 5 PL. Oblits could be 100 and still 5 PL. VC will be above 100, so 6 PL. That leaves just 1 PL for the CSM.
I'm so confused. They could be rounding PL down now, too?
The CSM list is 28 PL currently unless they've seriously changed the obliterator warscroll recently. 2 Oblits is 12, MP is 5, 5 CSM are 4 and your VC is 7.
My guess is that it's only SUPPOSED to be 1 oblit. It's way too convenient that it's exactly the second oblit less than it is now. I think it being 2 is either a typo or they used a 500 point list to make the article instead of a 25 PL list. Which could be its own clue.
Here's the thing though, assuming the chaos one is just a typo, both the chaos and admech lists are unchanged as far as PL go. Which to me says that this is either pre-points bump PL or they aren't changing PL at all. I lean towards they aren't changing PL at all.
Which means you can go ahead and start mathing out what you want to bring in from outflank now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote: I've been saying this for a while now. GW is actually doubling down on a lot of the mechanics that are dragging out game length and causing problems. Welcome to 9th. It will take longer per game, and be significantly more complex, while also keeping a lot of the actual problems from 8th (and, from what we've seen, expanding on them).
Tycho wrote: I've been saying this for a while now. GW is actually doubling down on a lot of the mechanics that are dragging out game length and causing problems. Welcome to 9th. It will take longer per game, and be significantly more complex, while also keeping a lot of the actual problems from 8th (and, from what we've seen, expanding on them).
Something that I just realized I missed. Patrols require one troops choice. The only thing in the loyalist list that could possibly be a troops choice is assault intercessors. So assault intercessors are troops, which is what I expected.
Sorry if this is something that's already been revealed and I didn't hear about it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Something that I just realized I missed. Patrols require one troops choice. The only thing in the loyalist list that could possibly be a troops choice is assault intercessors. So assault intercessors are troops, which is what I expected.
Sorry if this is something that's already been revealed and I didn't hear about it.
They were being... incredibly weird about it on stream.
"aha, we can't say assault intercessors are troops, but something must be aha".
They were "wink, wink, nudge, nudging" about the fact that they aren't cleared to say what FOC the units are in, but one of them has to be a Troops choice since it is a Patrol detachment. It was left as an exercise to the viewer to decide which.
I am sure we can all agree that the idea that anything other than the Assault Intercessors being Troops is bonkers.
I've genuinely been wondering if Assault Intercessors are going to be a loadout option for standard Intercessors, much like how Chaos Marines can be loaded up with BP+CCWs.
Maybe that's why they were being so weird about it?
The fact that they are called Assault Intercessors and not Intercessors means they will be a different squad. Doubly true since they will be a different box in the model range.
Kanluwen wrote: I've genuinely been wondering if Assault Intercessors are going to be a loadout option for standard Intercessors, much like how Chaos Marines can be loaded up with BP+CCWs.
Maybe that's why they were being so weird about it?
Nah, separate box = separate data sheet for gw. Just like tartaros and cataphractii terminators. They're in a different box so they can't just be terminators that look different, they need their own data sheet.
Actually, isn't that why loyalists have the two distinct data sheets for indomutus pattern terminators as well instead of having one with the full selection of options like csm?
Kanluwen wrote: I've genuinely been wondering if Assault Intercessors are going to be a loadout option for standard Intercessors, much like how Chaos Marines can be loaded up with BP+CCWs.
Maybe that's why they were being so weird about it?
Nah, separate box = separate data sheet for gw. Just like tartaros and cataphractii terminators. They're in a different box so they can't just be terminators that look different, they need their own data sheet.
Actually, isn't that why loyalists have the two distinct data sheets for indomutus pattern terminators as well instead of having one with the full selection of options like csm?
Edit:
Ninja'd by Alextroy.
In the case of the "standard" Terminator squads, I think it's a tradition/Codex-method-of-fighting thing than anything else - they've been that was back to 2nd edition, off the top of my head, and I think both styles were "buy the metal blister packs" back then.
alextroy wrote: The fact that they are called Assault Intercessors and not Intercessors means they will be a different squad. Doubly true since they will be a different box in the model range.
Which really doesn't mean anything when it comes to Marines, and especially doesn't mean anything when the units aren't being released at the same time.
Like I said: I've been wondering about this. Troops is already a ridiculously bloated slot for Marines, an 'elite' army when one considers that they have no Cultist-esque unit.
We have:
-Scouts
-Tactical Squad
-Infiltrators
-Incursors
-Intercessors
We don't need "Assault Intercessors" taking up a slot. And if we're going to be realistic? Them getting their own box wouldn't be a huge deal to anyone except Chaos Marine players(and rightly so), since the Codex Space Marines schtick for Primaris is "no mixing and matching wargear except for maybe an auxiliary grenade launcher on some guys and the sergeant with some goodies".
Yes please. I find it often goes well with legitimate complaints.
And what have they doubled down on?
What takes games of 8th so long to complete? It's the model count right? Because we were playing with almost the same count in 7th but games generally didn't take as long. So that ... oh wait no, it's not the model count at all, so I'm glad we're getting the "points increase". No, it's rerolls and strats. The problem isn't just CP farming (which they seem to have fixed), it's the fact that the game is so heavily balanced on it at all. The strats, combined with the amount of dice we need to roll, plus the amount of dice we reroll are what's adding to the game length. They appear to be pushing this harder rather than letting up on it. Go play a 1500 point game with all the strats, rerolls etc, and then play a 2000 point game with the same two armies, but either don't use rerolls and strats at all, or limit how many you can have. Watch how much faster the 2000 point game plays. It is often significant.
They have talked about wanting to address how long the "fastest playing edition of 40k ever" takes to complete a game, but so far, I haven't seen a whole that says the games won't be longer ...
Yea, though is it scaled properly with Primaris now? It may be. But then Cultists are 6 -- are they benefiting from something else greatly? Still too much missing from the big picture here.
Agreed. I'm wondering if maybe the cultists will start being able to benefit from certain Legion traits again or something like that. I know their original stated purpose for points increases was to have less models on the table for a faster game, but even with the limited info we currently have, that really doesn't seem like the actual goal ....
What takes games of 8th so long to complete? It's the model count right? Because we were playing with almost the same count in 7th but games generally didn't take as long. So that ... oh wait no, it's not the model count at all, so I'm glad we're getting the "points increase". No, it's rerolls and strats. The problem isn't just CP farming (which they seem to have fixed), it's the fact that the game is so heavily balanced on it at all. The strats, combined with the amount of dice we need to roll, plus the amount of dice we reroll are what's adding to the game length. They appear to be pushing this harder rather than letting up on it. Go play a 1500 point game with all the strats, rerolls etc, and then play a 2000 point game with the same two armies, but either don't use rerolls and strats at all, or limit how many you can have. Watch how much faster the 2000 point game plays. It is often significant.
I can't say for sure if games will be longer or shorter. It will probably take a month or two before we could memorize the rules and play with clocks.
I can't imagine calling these things doubling down :
- Model count begets dice, so, it follows that smaller counts could help.
- The dice added for morale is infinitesimal to the dice lost from O/W.
- The reserves will almost certainly be used often. The CP use there coupled with CP use on allies and detachments on top fixing the value creates a likelihood of games with lower CP than before.
There's still a lot we don't know, but they certainly haven't netted more dice nor have they pumped up stratagems. I'm not particularly concerned about game length as I am for seeing them level the playing field a bit more, but I feel these changes accomplish that, too.
I can't say for sure if games will be longer or shorter. It will probably take a month or two before we could memorize the rules and play with clocks.
I can't imagine calling these things doubling down :
- Model count begets dice, so, it follows that smaller counts could help.
- The dice added for morale is infinitesimal to the dice lost from O/W.
- The reserves will almost certainly be used often. The CP use there coupled with CP use on allies and detachments on top fixing the value creates a likelihood of games with lower CP than before.
There's still a lot we don't know, but they certainly haven't netted more dice nor have they pumped up stratagems. I'm not particularly concerned about game length as I am for seeing them level the playing field a bit more, but I feel these changes accomplish that, too.
Your first point isn't strictly accurate. I can have a 3 model squad put out more dice than a 5 or 10 man squad depending on what it is, and if you want to lower model count enough to have a significant impact (and assuming 9th really does end up being a small "adjustment" rather than a truly "new" edition) you need to get to something closer to 1500 or 1650 in "8th ed points" before there's a measurable impact. So far what we've seen is more in the area of like 1850, which is basically one marine squad. That's just not enough IMO. That said I also suspect the promise that 9th is basically just a cleaning up of 8th will aslo turn out to be a bit of a stretch so maybe a 150 point increase will have an impact.
I agree to a point in your next bullet, but we've already seen them hand out O/W exceptions, and there will certainly be more to come so saying we saved a lot of dice is probably not going to be entirely accurate, and we still have reroll mechanics so again, it's probably a negligible gain (I wasn't really worried about the dice added for moral because, like you said, it's not enough I don't think to significantly impact game length).
While I agree we have probably seen the last of the days of an army appearing at the table with 20+ CP, we still have an awful lot with an additional point added per turn and they are still counting on strats being a major part of the game. On top of that, we still have weight of fire issues. Units that roll, and then (probably) reroll a million dice. Everyone was upset about hordes, but I can put together a space marine army that will roll MORE dice when it shoots than some large Ork armies. So weight of dice is a problem even IF the O/W change ends up savign a ton of rolls, we still have reroll auras so that's not going away, and more than likely most of the strats will also be "reroll x". So far, they've basically ignored the REAL reason the games are taking longer. The "elephant in the room" is the fact that the core mechanics are causing the length to drag. It has nothing to do with model count, and they have pretty much danced around that so far.
EDITED: Because my typing lately is not too dissimilar to a one armed monkey wailing on a keyboard while wearing an oven mitt ...
In the previews we've seen, I haven't see many big changes to speed up play. The points adjustment helps, less overwatch helps, and the tripointing changes will help, but none of those are going to shave more than a few minutes off of the average match.
So if we continue to play at 2k points I imagine we'll still be doing three hour rounds. I'm not a huge fan of that duration, which is why I hope things like combat patrol catch on. I think the hobby is large enough now that there is an opportunity for more than one style of play to be popular/supported, and I think that's GW's angle.
Imagine being able to switch between a 500 point meta and a 2k point meta as whim strikes you. Get sick of seeing the same list over and over, jump tracks and suddenly it's the game you know but different.
Grimgold wrote: Imagine being able to switch between a 500 point meta and a 2k point meta as whim strikes you. Get sick of seeing the same list over and over, jump tracks and suddenly it's the game you know but different.
I suppose that's true, but honestly I expect the game to break at 500pts unless they make some significant changes with smaller games in mind. Abilities like Unstoppable Green Tide, or Reanimation Protocols on a 20-strong unit of Warriors, are fine at larger games but become downright oppressive at smaller points values. Primaris get a heck of a lot harder to deal with when you don't have access to lots of D2 platforms. I can't see Tau doing too great on tiny boards without the numbers to really make use of FtGG. It'll be different for sure; but I figure it'll be more of a narrative/Crusade/intro game mode rather than something competitive.
Grimgold wrote:
Imagine being able to switch between a 500 point meta and a 2k point meta as whim strikes you. Get sick of seeing the same list over and over, jump tracks and suddenly it's the game you know but different.
I suppose that's true, but honestly I expect the game to break at 500pts unless they make some significant changes with smaller games in mind. Abilities like Unstoppable Green Tide, or Reanimation Protocols on a 20-strong unit of Warriors, are fine at larger games but become downright oppressive at smaller points values. Primaris get a heck of a lot harder to deal with when you don't have access to lots of D2 platforms. I can't see Tau doing too great on tiny boards without the numbers to really make use of FtGG. It'll be different for sure; but I figure it'll be more of a narrative/Crusade/intro game mode rather than something competitive.
I agree that I'd love to see several different metas existing at several different point levels. Would be pretty cool! They've also hinted at having different points levels (there's that one chart), but as you say, the game doesn't really function well right now at anything under 1000(imo) unless it's something like a marine vs marine mirror match, and even then, it can be wonky when you go as low as 500. The amount of change required is significant, which is just another reason why I'm expecting that they are either about to step in it big time, or haven't been 100% up-front about the amount of change this edition will be asking for. Happy to be proven wrong though. I'll be the first one here joking about myself if 9th drops and my current comments are way off-base in retrospect. Fingers crossed!
There's no way 500 point battle will be vaguely balanced unless everyone agrees to take deliberately non-skewed lists.
Like for example if you show up to a 500 point game with an ad mech list that takes a an enginseer and 5 rangers - 65 points under current values - and then loads up the other 400-435 with 2 disintegrators and a bomber or something like that, you're just going to win most of your games before they even start because lots of lists simply won't have an answer for that. For example, none of their sample lists stand a chance against that list.
There's just far too much room for skew in a 500 point match for it to be competitive without much stricter limits on the units you can take than the patrol imposes.
There's no way 500 point battle will be vaguely balanced unless everyone agrees to take deliberately non-skewed lists.
Like for example if you show up to a 500 point game with an ad mech list that takes a an enginseer and 5 rangers - 75 points under current values - and then loads up the other 400-425 with 2 disintegrators and a bomber or something like that, you're just going to win most of your games before they even start because lots of lists simply won't have an answer for that. For example, none of their sample lists stand a chance against that list.
There's just far too much room for skew in a 500 point match for it to be competitive without much stricter limits on the units you can take than the patrol imposes.
That's why I'm saying it's concerning to see the "Matched Play Points Levels Chart" with the "Combat Patrol" level being set to 500. I keep saying this, but we are either about to get a huge heaping of "8th but worse", OR 9th will actually be way better, but also a completely different game (despite them saying otherwise). I think the day 1 FAQs to 8th ed codexes will essentially be almost total rewrites to accommodate a lot of this, which is fine, but don't tell me how this will just be a cleaning up and still fairly similar. I'm just not convinced they can pull this off the way they're claiming. If they DO manage to do it, I'll get a "James Workshop" tattoo because as it stands, the goal posts are pretty darn far from where they're kicking the ball ...
I am sure the PR spin about playing the game at other values is just that, PR spin. Yes, you can technically do it, but the game will be balanced for 2000 points. There's no way for a ruleset to be balanced at both 500 points and 2000 points without severe limits on what you can take at 500 points, which there is no indication that there are.
And that's fine with me, honestly. If people want to have fun games at 500 points fine, great. It just won't be competitively balanced, and that's ok in my book.
I am sure the PR spin about playing the game at other values is just that, PR spin. Yes, you can technically do it, but the game will be balanced for 2000 points. There's no way for a ruleset to be balanced at both 500 points and 2000 points without severe limits on what you can take at 500 points, which there is no indication that there are.
And that's fine with me, honestly. If people want to have fun games at 500 points fine, great. It just won't be competitively balanced, and that's ok in my book.
It's in the actual Matched Play rules. It's not PR spin. It's actually in the rules. They aren't claiming "500 point narrative fun games". They're claiming they have a system that will work at those levels using what is essentially only a "cleaning up" of the current rules. That's not PR spin. It's what they're actually claiming. That's where I have issues with it. I don't think they can deliver on that promise unless 9th as a whole is shaping up to be something very different than what they're actually claiming.
Well that's what I mean, it is PR spin no matter what they say it is. Unless they place much stricter limits on what you can take at 500 points than the patrol detachment inherently contains, balanced games will not be possible.
alextroy wrote: The fact that they are called Assault Intercessors and not Intercessors means they will be a different squad. Doubly true since they will be a different box in the model range.
Which really doesn't mean anything when it comes to Marines, and especially doesn't mean anything when the units aren't being released at the same time.
Like I said: I've been wondering about this. Troops is already a ridiculously bloated slot for Marines, an 'elite' army when one considers that they have no Cultist-esque unit.
We have:
-Scouts
-Tactical Squad
-Infiltrators
-Incursors
-Intercessors
We don't need "Assault Intercessors" taking up a slot. And if we're going to be realistic? Them getting their own box wouldn't be a huge deal to anyone except Chaos Marine players(and rightly so), since the Codex Space Marines schtick for Primaris is "no mixing and matching wargear except for maybe an auxiliary grenade launcher on some guys and the sergeant with some goodies".
Well we could toss Incursors away since nobody asked for them. Assault Intercessors should really just be a profile in the regular Intercessor profile. However knowing GW they might not do that.
Yes please. I find it often goes well with legitimate complaints.
And what have they doubled down on?
What takes games of 8th so long to complete? It's the model count right? Because we were playing with almost the same count in 7th but games generally didn't take as long. So that ... oh wait no, it's not the model count at all, so I'm glad we're getting the "points increase". No, it's rerolls and strats. The problem isn't just CP farming (which they seem to have fixed), it's the fact that the game is so heavily balanced on it at all. The strats, combined with the amount of dice we need to roll, plus the amount of dice we reroll are what's adding to the game length. They appear to be pushing this harder rather than letting up on it. Go play a 1500 point game with all the strats, rerolls etc, and then play a 2000 point game with the same two armies, but either don't use rerolls and strats at all, or limit how many you can have. Watch how much faster the 2000 point game plays. It is often significant.
They have talked about wanting to address how long the "fastest playing edition of 40k ever" takes to complete a game, but so far, I haven't seen a whole that says the games won't be longer ...
Yea, though is it scaled properly with Primaris now? It may be. But then Cultists are 6 -- are they benefiting from something else greatly? Still too much missing from the big picture here.
Agreed. I'm wondering if maybe the cultists will start being able to benefit from certain Legion traits again or something like that. I know their original stated purpose for points increases was to have less models on the table for a faster game, but even with the limited info we currently have, that really doesn't seem like the actual goal ....
What legitimate complaint? Your entirely out of context b***ch moaning? You throw out a vague complaint about 'GW doubling down on a lot of mechanics that are dragging down game length', like that's not 100% just a whine. If you had said how, IN THE ARTICLE THE THREAD IS TALKING ABOUT, GW was doing that or what mechanics were dragging down game length, then it would have been legitimate. But you didn't.
You came in here, shouted I DON'T LIKE STUFF ABOUT THE GAME!!! #SADFACE and that was the whole post. That is literally what a whine is.
You might have had legitimate concerns in other posts you made, but the one that was quoted earlier was 100% grade-A, accomplishes nothing for no one, whining.
What legitimate complaint? Your entirely out of context b***ch moaning? You throw out a vague complaint about 'GW doubling down on a lot of mechanics that are dragging down game length', like that's not 100% just a whine. If you had said how, IN THE ARTICLE THE THREAD IS TALKING ABOUT, GW was doing that or what mechanics were dragging down game length, then it would have been legitimate. But you didn't.
You came in here, shouted I DON'T LIKE STUFF ABOUT THE GAME!!! #SADFACE and that was the whole post. That is literally what a whine is.
You might have had legitimate concerns in other posts you made, but the one that was quoted earlier was 100% grade-A, accomplishes nothing for no one, whining.
So I've laid out my exact specific thoughts so many times in so many threads in the last week or so, and so many people in this thread were also in those that I didn't really feel like that post needed elaboration. I've been pointing out from day 1 where I think they're going wrong w/9th and this is one of the things I predicted. Figured I'd try to spare everyone the word for word repost again. Even posted the salt-pounding icon to make fun of the post a bit. I'm sorry you have been upset by it.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well that's what I mean, it is PR spin no matter what they say it is. Unless they place much stricter limits on what you can take at 500 points than the patrol detachment inherently contains, balanced games will not be possible.
At 500 points every list is going to be specialized, you might have a nidzilla list that's mostly monsters, or some kind of pox walker list that has a ton of models. I think making a TAC list will be super hard, because your not going to have the tools to do that at 500 points. So every list will have things they are good at, and things they can't do. So battles will come down to two factors, does your specialty counter their specialty, and who plays the mission better. Take a look at the example mission, aside from whatever secondaries you chose, there are no VPs for killing, and there are not going to be 3 secondaries around eliminating opponents. The Big stompy ad mech list mentioned earlier in the thread could kill opponents just fine, but will have a hard time completing objectives. If you can't get enough bodies on objectives to take them and/or keep your opponents from circle capping them, that mission is going to be a nightmare.
If they get the missions right, list built to score will handily out do list built around wiping out your opponent. You see this in kill team, were custodes are immortal killing machines, but often get rolled by a guant slapping the close door button while his broodmates go and squat on objectives. If all your list does is eliminate units, you'll table your opponent by turn 4, and then lose on points anyway. The focus on mission over murder is one of the (possibly few) things Kill team did right, it's resulted in a highly dynamic meta even in a system where there is a lot of variability in the relative strength of the factions. Like someone took first in a GT with the gellarpox infected, who are arguably the weakest faction in kill team. It would have been like winning a major with pre PA dark angels.
Will it actually work, who knows. I'm realistic enough to know that people will be net listing five minutes after this gets popular, and then the question will be is the mission design good enough to hold up to that level of scrutiny. With GWs goal in mind, don't judge the style of play just by the list that can be built, because the missions will be at least as important as the list.
Tycho wrote: I've been saying this for a while now. GW is actually doubling down on a lot of the mechanics that are dragging out game length and causing problems. Welcome to 9th. It will take longer per game, and be significantly more complex, while also keeping a lot of the actual problems from 8th (and, from what we've seen, expanding on them).
And yet GW and everyone involved in the playtesting have said the game will be shorter on average (once you get used to it of course).
At 500 points every list is going to be specialized, you might have a nidzilla list that's mostly monsters, or some kind of pox walker list that has a ton of models. I think making a TAC list will be super hard, because your not going to have the tools to do that at 500 points. So every list will have things they are good at, and things they can't do. So battles will come down to two factors, does your specialty counter their specialty, and who plays the mission better. Take a look at the example mission, aside from whatever secondaries you chose, there are no VPs for killing, and there are not going to be 3 secondaries around eliminating opponents. The Big stompy ad mech list mentioned earlier in the thread could kill opponents just fine, but will have a hard time completing objectives. If you can't get enough bodies on objectives to take them and/or keep your opponents from circle capping them, that mission is going to be a nightmare.
If they get the missions right, list built to score will handily out do list built around wiping out your opponent. You see this in kill team, were custodes are immortal killing machines, but often get rolled by a guant slapping the close door button while his broodmates go and squat on objectives. If all your list does is eliminate units, you'll table your opponent by turn 4, and then lose on points anyway. The focus on mission over murder is one of the (possibly few) things Kill team did right, it's resulted in a highly dynamic meta even in a system where there is a lot of variability in the relative strength of the factions. Like someone took first in a GT with the gellarpox infected, who are arguably the weakest faction in kill team. It would have been like winning a major with pre PA dark angels.
Will it actually work, who knows. I'm realistic enough to know that people will be net listing five minutes after this gets popular, and then the question will be is the mission design good enough to hold up to that level of scrutiny. With GWs goal in mind, don't judge the style of play just by the list that can be built, because the missions will be at least as important as the list.
But doesn't that just skew the game in horde favour? The more elite armies may not have the fire power to deal with someone playing with a 40-50 9 pts models, at the same time 40-50 bolters kill those 20+ pts models same fast as they did in larger games. 500pts for an elite army , is either one good squads or two squads of troops with a really bad HQ to lead them. Also armies that are build around the idea of cycling 5-6 abilities on 3-4 characters and 4-5 units are not going to work at all. Those 500pts games don't sound very fun.
Tycho wrote: I've been saying this for a while now. GW is actually doubling down on a lot of the mechanics that are dragging out game length and causing problems. Welcome to 9th. It will take longer per game, and be significantly more complex, while also keeping a lot of the actual problems from 8th (and, from what we've seen, expanding on them).
And yet GW and everyone involved in the playtesting have said the game will be shorter on average (once you get used to it of course).
Did they say which type of the game? Because if the use politicians or corpo speak, then something like w40k games are going to be faster, Can mean something like, if you pay 500pts crusad against the best of best friends and never have any rule problems or disagreements about rules or terrain the game is going to take less time to play then a 2000pts match played 8th ed game.
Karol wrote: Is that the guy that said that GK in 8th ed are not only going to be good, but actualy too good ?
Don't recall that one, but Reece did predict the Stompa to be OP.
I don't trust Reece to predict meta, but how long it takes to play a game? Especially when the TTT guys are also saying the same thing? I can believe it.
But doesn't that just skew the game in horde favour? The more elite armies may not have the fire power to deal with someone playing with a 40-50 9 pts models, at the same time 40-50 bolters kill those 20+ pts models same fast as they did in larger games. 500pts for an elite army , is either one good squads or two squads of troops with a really bad HQ to lead them. Also armies that are build around the idea of cycling 5-6 abilities on 3-4 characters and 4-5 units are not going to work at all. Those 500pts games don't sound very fun.
In kill team, hordes happen but they are not ubiquitous. Hordes are great for board control, but the disadvantage to hordes is that horde units tend to perform poorly on an individual level, and so it's easy to lose an important fight. So Kill team list building works out to be finding a balance between number of bodies and quality of units, with certain factions skewing one way or another. I think that can translate to 40k, but it comes down to how the missions are written. Missions should give advantages to both play styles, and The example mission has a good example of this kind of trade off. In the mission elite/strong forces will try to take the objective in enemy territory for the bonus points, and horde armies will try to control three objective to max their points. The whole thing will hang on whether or not the horde can get three, if the elites can stop them, it will be 15 to 10 in their favor, if not it will be 10 to 15 to the horde. Which is to say there are effective strategies for playing as both hordes and elites, or any mix between. Add in secondaries and it becomes more about making the right decisions than the specifics of your army. That's certainly been my experience at least, every game of KT I've played and lost it's been pretty easy for me to pick out the mistake I made.
At 500 points every list is going to be specialized, you might have a nidzilla list that's mostly monsters, or some kind of pox walker list that has a ton of models. I think making a TAC list will be super hard, because your not going to have the tools to do that at 500 points. So every list will have things they are good at, and things they can't do. So battles will come down to two factors, does your specialty counter their specialty, and who plays the mission better. Take a look at the example mission, aside from whatever secondaries you chose, there are no VPs for killing, and there are not going to be 3 secondaries around eliminating opponents. The Big stompy ad mech list mentioned earlier in the thread could kill opponents just fine, but will have a hard time completing objectives. If you can't get enough bodies on objectives to take them and/or keep your opponents from circle capping them, that mission is going to be a nightmare.
If they get the missions right, list built to score will handily out do list built around wiping out your opponent. You see this in kill team, were custodes are immortal killing machines, but often get rolled by a guant slapping the close door button while his broodmates go and squat on objectives. If all your list does is eliminate units, you'll table your opponent by turn 4, and then lose on points anyway. The focus on mission over murder is one of the (possibly few) things Kill team did right, it's resulted in a highly dynamic meta even in a system where there is a lot of variability in the relative strength of the factions. Like someone took first in a GT with the gellarpox infected, who are arguably the weakest faction in kill team. It would have been like winning a major with pre PA dark angels.
Will it actually work, who knows. I'm realistic enough to know that people will be net listing five minutes after this gets popular, and then the question will be is the mission design good enough to hold up to that level of scrutiny. With GWs goal in mind, don't judge the style of play just by the list that can be built, because the missions will be at least as important as the list.
But doesn't that just skew the game in horde favour? The more elite armies may not have the fire power to deal with someone playing with a 40-50 9 pts models, at the same time 40-50 bolters kill those 20+ pts models same fast as they did in larger games. 500pts for an elite army , is either one good squads or two squads of troops with a really bad HQ to lead them. Also armies that are build around the idea of cycling 5-6 abilities on 3-4 characters and 4-5 units are not going to work at all. Those 500pts games don't sound very fun.
Tycho wrote: I've been saying this for a while now. GW is actually doubling down on a lot of the mechanics that are dragging out game length and causing problems. Welcome to 9th. It will take longer per game, and be significantly more complex, while also keeping a lot of the actual problems from 8th (and, from what we've seen, expanding on them).
And yet GW and everyone involved in the playtesting have said the game will be shorter on average (once you get used to it of course).
Did they say which type of the game? Because if the use politicians or corpo speak, then something like w40k games are going to be faster, Can mean something like, if you pay 500pts crusad against the best of best friends and never have any rule problems or disagreements about rules or terrain the game is going to take less time to play then a 2000pts match played 8th ed game.
How exactly do you plan to having dispute over terrain in 9th? Honestly curious.
You assign the keywords at the start of the game and then there is no more possible interpretation.
Well store is closed, So there ain't going to be any disputes over terrain.
But in general my expiriance is that if two players get their own way, and a third party no matter of what kind, decides what the terrain is pre game for them, there are going to be disputes over everything 10 out of 10 times.
That is why stuff like, every terrain with a base is area terrain, every terrain without base is not. Windows and doors on first floor don't count for drawin LoS were enforced here.
I really would not want to see people argue, if this forest is dense enough to count dense, but that other bigger one, who is in their deployment and would be nice firebase, is not dense, but heavy and fortified. Stuff like that adds to time wasted before the actual game, and requires you to be both good at social stuff, and liked in general. If you don't have friends people will always say no to you, because doing so brings zero repercusions, while someone who is the store owners close friend could just make it so you are soft baned from renting table time.
The less interaction between people is needed to solve any rules problems and the less space for interpretation the better for the game. It is like sports, where you know what you can do and what you can't do, and you don't need a 2 hour argument with your opponent what is okey and what isn't every game.
At 500 points every list is going to be specialized, you might have a nidzilla list that's mostly monsters, or some kind of pox walker list that has a ton of models. I think making a TAC list will be super hard, because your not going to have the tools to do that at 500 points. So every list will have things they are good at, and things they can't do. So battles will come down to two factors, does your specialty counter their specialty, and who plays the mission better. Take a look at the example mission, aside from whatever secondaries you chose, there are no VPs for killing, and there are not going to be 3 secondaries around eliminating opponents. The Big stompy ad mech list mentioned earlier in the thread could kill opponents just fine, but will have a hard time completing objectives. If you can't get enough bodies on objectives to take them and/or keep your opponents from circle capping them, that mission is going to be a nightmare.
If they get the missions right, list built to score will handily out do list built around wiping out your opponent. You see this in kill team, were custodes are immortal killing machines, but often get rolled by a guant slapping the close door button while his broodmates go and squat on objectives. If all your list does is eliminate units, you'll table your opponent by turn 4, and then lose on points anyway. The focus on mission over murder is one of the (possibly few) things Kill team did right, it's resulted in a highly dynamic meta even in a system where there is a lot of variability in the relative strength of the factions. Like someone took first in a GT with the gellarpox infected, who are arguably the weakest faction in kill team. It would have been like winning a major with pre PA dark angels.
Will it actually work, who knows. I'm realistic enough to know that people will be net listing five minutes after this gets popular, and then the question will be is the mission design good enough to hold up to that level of scrutiny. With GWs goal in mind, don't judge the style of play just by the list that can be built, because the missions will be at least as important as the list.
But doesn't that just skew the game in horde favour? The more elite armies may not have the fire power to deal with someone playing with a 40-50 9 pts models, at the same time 40-50 bolters kill those 20+ pts models same fast as they did in larger games. 500pts for an elite army , is either one good squads or two squads of troops with a really bad HQ to lead them. Also armies that are build around the idea of cycling 5-6 abilities on 3-4 characters and 4-5 units are not going to work at all. Those 500pts games don't sound very fun.
Tycho wrote: I've been saying this for a while now. GW is actually doubling down on a lot of the mechanics that are dragging out game length and causing problems. Welcome to 9th. It will take longer per game, and be significantly more complex, while also keeping a lot of the actual problems from 8th (and, from what we've seen, expanding on them).
And yet GW and everyone involved in the playtesting have said the game will be shorter on average (once you get used to it of course).
Did they say which type of the game? Because if the use politicians or corpo speak, then something like w40k games are going to be faster, Can mean something like, if you pay 500pts crusad against the best of best friends and never have any rule problems or disagreements about rules or terrain the game is going to take less time to play then a 2000pts match played 8th ed game.
How exactly do you plan to having dispute over terrain in 9th? Honestly curious.
You assign the keywords at the start of the game and then there is no more possible interpretation.
That depends on how you assign the keywords. If you're just picking them then that will break down quick. If there's an actual system in the rules for it it won't be that big of a deal.
Where did we get the impression that reroll auras would be going away in 9th Ed? I've been out of touch for a few days at a time (working in a remote area during the week), but I don't recall any hints that indicated that.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Where did we get the impression that reroll auras would be going away in 9th Ed? I've been out of touch for a few days at a time (working in a remote area during the week), but I don't recall any hints that indicated that.
Just some people wishing for it to be that way with no hint that it would be changing, like the people who got mad that 9th wasn’t alternating activations.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Where did we get the impression that reroll auras would be going away in 9th Ed? I've been out of touch for a few days at a time (working in a remote area during the week), but I don't recall any hints that indicated that.
Just a hope really since it's been one of the most common gripes (in regard to SM Chapter Masters). basically, what's the point of rolling so many dice if they are all mostly going to hit anyway.
However, we still haven't seen the one big change that has been thrown around, I still predict it will be with auras. I'm now thinking that maybe it's something you have to activate in the Command Phase and possibly require a test (like litanies). If an aura goes off on a 3+ for example, a Chapter Master could make that happen on a 2+ instead (reroll 1s to hit that is).
Who knows, I just want to see the "castle" reroll everything go away. Auras are definitely still around, but we haven't seen in what form and we also haven't seen what is needed in the "Command" phase. For it to become an actual phase, I expect significant changes.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Where did we get the impression that reroll auras would be going away in 9th Ed? I've been out of touch for a few days at a time (working in a remote area during the week), but I don't recall any hints that indicated that.
Just some people wishing for it to be that way with no hint that it would be changing, like the people who got mad that 9th wasn’t alternating activations.
My uneducated hope is that reroll auras would be a number of units based on the unit similar to the new necron unit that applies its buff in the command phase. A CM could buff 3. A captain/lt could do 1.
But if marines take the most point increases then it may well be fine.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Where did we get the impression that reroll auras would be going away in 9th Ed? I've been out of touch for a few days at a time (working in a remote area during the week), but I don't recall any hints that indicated that.
Just a hope really since it's been one of the most common gripes (in regard to SM Chapter Masters). basically, what's the point of rolling so many dice if they are all mostly going to hit anyway.
However, we still haven't seen the one big change that has been thrown around, I still predict it will be with auras. I'm now thinking that maybe it's something you have to activate in the Command Phase and possibly require a test (like litanies). If an aura goes off on a 3+ for example, a Chapter Master could make that happen on a 2+ instead (reroll 1s to hit that is).
Who knows, I just want to see the "castle" reroll everything go away. Auras are definitely still around, but we haven't seen in what form and we also haven't seen what is needed in the "Command" phase. For it to become an actual phase, I expect significant changes.
We will see but I highly doubt that they are doing that. GW claims they wrote the new SM dex with 9th in mind so they probably would have just made the CM reroll aura activate like a chaplain’s abilities then. My guess is the earliest we would see the change would be whenever the new SM codex drops(with will likely be early in the edition but could be a month or more in), but I still don’t think they will change it to a roll like that.
And yet GW and everyone involved in the playtesting have said the game will be shorter on average (once you get used to it of course).
These same people said that exact same thing about 8th. Word. For. Word. Take from that what you will ....
Yeah, but as I've pointed out by name, it's not just Reece who has said it this time. We've been hearing from a wider playtesting group this time, and they are on the same page on this.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well that's what I mean, it is PR spin no matter what they say it is. Unless they place much stricter limits on what you can take at 500 points than the patrol detachment inherently contains, balanced games will not be possible.
At 500 points every list is going to be specialized, you might have a nidzilla list that's mostly monsters, or some kind of pox walker list that has a ton of models. I think making a TAC list will be super hard, because your not going to have the tools to do that at 500 points. So every list will have things they are good at, and things they can't do. So battles will come down to two factors, does your specialty counter their specialty, and who plays the mission better. Take a look at the example mission, aside from whatever secondaries you chose, there are no VPs for killing, and there are not going to be 3 secondaries around eliminating opponents. The Big stompy ad mech list mentioned earlier in the thread could kill opponents just fine, but will have a hard time completing objectives. If you can't get enough bodies on objectives to take them and/or keep your opponents from circle capping them, that mission is going to be a nightmare.
Well sure. I didn't say that list was unbeatable, just that lots of lists won't be able to beat it. None of the lists that they gave examples of would stand a chance - they'd get tabled by T3, and don't even have that many more bodies to hold objectives to build up a lead before that. On the other hand, you might be able to come up with some sort of horde list that could beat it (though the bomber makes that hard).
My point wasn't that there'll be one unbeatable list at 500 points, just that lists will be so skewed that the results will often be predetermined by comparing your two lists. A TAC list doesn't work at 500 points; it just ends up being a Take No Actual Comers list because people will skew to one side or the other.
It'll also be skewed by other stuff like skyweavers or kraken stealers that can easily hit any point on the board on T1, which once again will simply beat some lists T1 with nothing you can do about it, at least if they go first.
Yeah, but as I've pointed out by name, it's not just Reece who has said it this time. We've been hearing from a wider playtesting group this time, and they are on the same page on this.
Maybe. But it was "not just Reese" last time either. I am with anyone saying anything he says should be taken with a heap of salt. 8th was billed as both the "most play tested edition ever" AND "the fastest edition ever". So them saying "No really! Seriously! It IS faster this time guys! And we MEAN it! SOOOOO Many play testers!", when, during the whole of 8th, play testers failed to realize how slow the core mechanics would make the game - SLOWER than 7th (an edition with some of the most convoluted mechanics ever, as well as one of the slowest playing ever), failed to prevent Iron Hands, failed to prevent things like the rediculous flyer problems we had at the start of 8th, etc etc, really doesn't fill me with a ton of confidence. Especially not when, outside of O/W, I haven't seen a ton that indicates a faster game. We've seen added complexity, but not added speed imo. Again, it may not be the play testers fault. Maybe they said "Hey guys, uh, this game is SLOWER", but the marketing was already locked so GW ignored them. Maybe they were only asked yo play test certain things that would have prevented them from noticing some of the things that would have been embarrassingly obvious otherwise.
All I know is, 8th being the "Most play tested edition ever" only lead to GW making the same "GW Mistakes" they always make. So color me skeptical.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reroll 1s are fine, it's full rerolls that are problematic, and in particular the ridiculous full reroll 6" bubble that the chapter master trait gives.
The difference between reroll 1's and reroll all hits while hitting on 3's is small 88% vs 77%. The difference is most beneficial in overwatch and vs negative to hit modifiers. I think with overwatch being once per turn + a CP and neg modifiers being at best a -1. It will be a lot less "problematic". Also seriously...do you know how easy it is for marines to have an army of mostly 2+ BS for them a reroll aura of 1's would be nearly identical? It is fairly easy. Stacking negative modifiers was really a much bigger problem than a reroll aura ever was.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reroll 1s are fine, it's full rerolls that are problematic, and in particular the ridiculous full reroll 6" bubble that the chapter master trait gives.
The difference between reroll 1's and reroll all hits while hitting on 3's is small 88% vs 77%. The difference is most beneficial in overwatch and vs negative to hit modifiers. I think with overwatch being once per turn + a CP and neg modifiers being at best a -1. It will be a lot less "problematic". Also seriously...do you know how easy it is for marines to have an army of mostly 2+ BS for them a reroll aura of 1's would be nearly identical? It is fairly easy. Stacking negative modifiers was really a much bigger problem than a reroll aura ever was.
You mean like every dang marine flyer in 9th will be because instead of allowing them to ignore the penelty for moving and shooting they got +1 to hit, designed for 9th yeah to break 9th edition by being the same dang OP mess.
Yes -3 Alitoc was dumb but marine's where the only army given enough dang rerolls and shooting per point to give 0 F's about it and just blow them off the board anyway the same they do with any list that's resulted in them agter 3 rounds of nerfing still having 60% win rates against non marines.
You're missing my point. The whole problem with full reroll auras is it makes minuses to hit virtually irrelevant (and by the same token makes overwatch extremely powerful, especially overwatch on 5s).
The problem is that when you have full rerolls and modifiers capped at -1 you always hit at least 75% of the time no matter what even with your troops, even against targets that are supposedly very hard to hit. That's bad game design. You end up rolling buckets of dice for very little effect because almost everything hits. Targets that are difficult to hit shouldn't be getting hit 75% of the time by the cheapest models in an army.
If you have a hit roll in a game it should be meaningful. One army hitting 75% of the time no matter what, and usually 88%, isn't fun to play against nor is it particularly fun to play, unless you really like the feeling of rolling tons of dice to reach a preordained conclusion that they almost all hit.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Where did we get the impression that reroll auras would be going away in 9th Ed? I've been out of touch for a few days at a time (working in a remote area during the week), but I don't recall any hints that indicated that.
Just some people wishing for it to be that way with no hint that it would be changing, like the people who got mad that 9th wasn’t alternating activations.
My uneducated hope is that reroll auras would be a number of units based on the unit similar to the new necron unit that applies its buff in the command phase. A CM could buff 3. A captain/lt could do 1.
But if marines take the most point increases then it may well be fine.
If auras would be a number of units, then they would not be auras.
The new Necron unit is a targeted buff, not an aura. Targeted buffs have existed and will continue to exist.
If auras would be a number of units, then they would not be auras.
Try saying that in YMDC
Anyway, I can't see there being any chance of such a sweeping change to a range of abilities listed on a host of datasheets across the whole game. Too much errata.
At best, if its something they want to do, they'll address it as each new codex comes out.
Yeah, but as I've pointed out by name, it's not just Reece who has said it this time. We've been hearing from a wider playtesting group this time, and they are on the same page on this.
Maybe. But it was "not just Reese" last time either. I am with anyone saying anything he says should be taken with a heap of salt. 8th was billed as both the "most play tested edition ever" AND "the fastest edition ever". So them saying "No really! Seriously! It IS faster this time guys! And we MEAN it! SOOOOO Many play testers!", when, during the whole of 8th, play testers failed to realize how slow the core mechanics would make the game - SLOWER than 7th (an edition with some of the most convoluted mechanics ever, as well as one of the slowest playing ever), failed to prevent Iron Hands, failed to prevent things like the rediculous flyer problems we had at the start of 8th, etc etc, really doesn't fill me with a ton of confidence. Especially not when, outside of O/W, I haven't seen a ton that indicates a faster game. We've seen added complexity, but not added speed imo. Again, it may not be the play testers fault. Maybe they said "Hey guys, uh, this game is SLOWER", but the marketing was already locked so GW ignored them. Maybe they were only asked yo play test certain things that would have prevented them from noticing some of the things that would have been embarrassingly obvious otherwise.
All I know is, 8th being the "Most play tested edition ever" only lead to GW making the same "GW Mistakes" they always make. So color me skeptical.
Iron Hands came out nearly 3 yeaes after the edition launched.
And at launch the edition WAS faster.
3 years of bloat from all the releases will of course slow the game down. We went from a very barebones start to one full of rules bloat from stuff like all the Marine rerolls. Using its end state to critique where it started from is fallacious at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And one of the biggest things being mentioned is the 20% less army" which means 20% less movement, die rolls and engagements per game.
Not that people won't continue to take forever to play regardless.
I have a much bigger issue with invulnerable saves. When if comes to negating stats you pay for they are the worst offenders. Ap-5 totally nullified by a 4++ save on a 9 point model. To me that is upsetting. Admittedly I play with full reroll auras in basically every army I can play with.
Tau Kayun (after that powerful turn you have 3+1 reroll 1's from markers)
Black Legion (full rerolls and +1 to hits and shoots twice at +! to wound)
Ultramarines (Full rerolls)(+relic to reroll wounds vs their best unit)
and pretty much all the other armies I play at least reroll 1's.
Really just my Nids don't and that is because they are terrible.
The conclusion I can come to is that when you don't hit reliably nothing dies in this game. between wound rolls and inevitably invune saves and FNP. If you can't automatically hit nearly no damage will be done.
I would say that Invul saves are really only problematic if the unit is tough, and/or has a load of wounds on top. Obviously as a Drukhari player I'm biased, but I don't see a Wych having 4++ in close combat as particularly egregious.
harlokin wrote: I would say that Invul saves are really only problematic if the unit is tough, and/or has a load of wounds on top. Obviously as a Drukhari player I'm biased, but I don't see a Wych having 4++ in close combat as particularly egregious.
A 5++ save on a venom is 1 thing. It gives you a general durability that makes sense and its fine. 4++ and 3++ saves straight negate normal damage by 50% and 66%. Even if you hit 90% they are still taking very low damage. OFC everyone any their mother does everything they can do to hit better cause it is the only thing you can really control for when doing damage.
Also with invune saves - it's not nearly as bad on some units as other. Wyches is fine. Wracks...ehhh...I don't really think they should be bouncing volcano lances. These are just my gripes. I understand people complaining about auto hitting. My mates and I also bicker about it while we are playing. ESP when we are playing weaker armies that don't have rerolls...Feels like shooting blanks.
Yeah, but as I've pointed out by name, it's not just Reece who has said it this time. We've been hearing from a wider playtesting group this time, and they are on the same page on this.
Maybe. But it was "not just Reese" last time either. I am with anyone saying anything he says should be taken with a heap of salt. 8th was billed as both the "most play tested edition ever" AND "the fastest edition ever". So them saying "No really! Seriously! It IS faster this time guys! And we MEAN it! SOOOOO Many play testers!", when, during the whole of 8th, play testers failed to realize how slow the core mechanics would make the game - SLOWER than 7th (an edition with some of the most convoluted mechanics ever, as well as one of the slowest playing ever), failed to prevent Iron Hands, failed to prevent things like the rediculous flyer problems we had at the start of 8th, etc etc, really doesn't fill me with a ton of confidence. Especially not when, outside of O/W, I haven't seen a ton that indicates a faster game. We've seen added complexity, but not added speed imo. Again, it may not be the play testers fault. Maybe they said "Hey guys, uh, this game is SLOWER", but the marketing was already locked so GW ignored them. Maybe they were only asked yo play test certain things that would have prevented them from noticing some of the things that would have been embarrassingly obvious otherwise.
All I know is, 8th being the "Most play tested edition ever" only lead to GW making the same "GW Mistakes" they always make. So color me skeptical.
Iron Hands came out nearly 3 yeaes after the edition launched.
And at launch the edition WAS faster.
3 years of bloat from all the releases will of course slow the game down. We went from a very barebones start to one full of rules bloat from stuff like all the Marine rerolls. Using its end state to critique where it started from is fallacious at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And one of the biggest things being mentioned is the 20% less army" which means 20% less movement, die rolls and engagements per game.
Not that people won't continue to take forever to play regardless.
I was getting ready to say this myself. The game was significantly faster when people were playing Index 40K with 7th Editionish list. Then the game changed as codexes added more rules and players moved away from vehicles and towards masses of cheap infantry in the quest for CP and board control. I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger issue in game play time is actually the list being used rather than all the extra rules GW added in the codexes.
harlokin wrote: I would say that Invul saves are really only problematic if the unit is tough, and/or has a load of wounds on top. Obviously as a Drukhari player I'm biased, but I don't see a Wych having 4++ in close combat as particularly egregious.
A 5++ save on a venom is 1 thing. It gives you a general durability that makes sense and its fine. 4++ and 3++ saves straight negate normal damage by 50% and 66%. Even if you hit 90% they are still taking very low damage. OFC everyone any their mother does everything they can do to hit better cause it is the only thing you can really control for when doing damage.
Also with invune saves - it's not nearly as bad on some units as other. Wyches is fine. Wracks...ehhh...I don't really think they should be bouncing volcano lances. These are just my gripes. I understand people complaining about auto hitting. My mates and I also bicker about it while we are playing. ESP when we are playing weaker armies that don't have rerolls...Feels like shooting blanks.
Except if hitting and wounding at the rediculous rates many lists do invulnerable saves of 4++, 3++ wouldn't be need on the "Tougher" targets as it is without them units just go poop, poop, poop.
Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.
ClockworkZion wrote: Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.
It'a just not good design.
I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.
ClockworkZion wrote: Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.
It'a just not good design.
I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.
Then you take away the only way mortal wounds can be mitigated for tougher models.
And if you say Invuls should counter mortals then you break the mechanical balance I mentioned earlier.
ClockworkZion wrote: Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.
It'a just not good design.
I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.
Then you take away the only way mortal wounds can be mitigated for tougher models.
And if you say Invuls should counter mortals then you break the mechanical balance I mentioned earlier.
Mortals shouldn't have a save against them by design. It's kind of what they are meant to be. And yes, this idea wouldn't work in 40k as it is right now because it has been designed with a different intention. Armies like DG rely on their FnP as part of their identity, and Mortal wounds are more abundant than at the beginning.
ClockworkZion wrote: Making Invuls intI Ward Saves leads to them either being Tho but better (because lower numbers and not rolling vs damage) or into a save for a save followed by a FnP save.
It'a just not good design.
I wouldn't have FnP saves in the game at all. Rolling for FnP saves on 2 damage weps with 1 wound models, 1 at a time, is much more egregious.
Just roll one for each shoot and if you roll your FNP value reroll that dice. That only works with multidamage weapons agaisnt single wound models but it speeds it.
Iron Hands came out nearly 3 yeaes after the edition launched.
And at launch the edition WAS faster.
3 years of bloat from all the releases will of course slow the game down. We went from a very barebones start to one full of rules bloat from stuff like all the Marine rerolls. Using its end state to critique where it started from is fallacious at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And one of the biggest things being mentioned is the 20% less army" which means 20% less movement, die rolls and engagements per game.
Iron Hands coming out 3 years later has what do with any of it? The play testers were involved throughout the edition. Iron Hands was play tested by these very same people. It still made it out. What's your point with the timeline on that?
"at launch" So, "Index 40k ≠8th edition". Yes, smaller games of index 40k WERE faster. But 2000 point games, even in index 40k (while still faster than where we are now) were still longer than they should have been for the "fastest edition ever". Even at the time, you could see posts like that popping up only a short period post-launch. People were already talking about game length. So it was clearly a problem pretty quick. Now let's add in the fact that the play testers would have to have had at least beta rules for the first codex or two for a while prior to 8th starting and would still have been able to say "Guys, this isn't faster". So the fact that smaller index 40k games (index 40k never having been intended to be the "new edition" and ALWAYS having been intended to be temporary) did not take as long is kind of meaningless.
20% less army? Maybe. Like I said before, using "8th ed points" you need to get down closer to 1650 or 1500 before you see an appreciable decrease in play-time. So far, we haven't seen that. It's been about the equivalent of a squad or so. If one squad is causing anyone to play a significantly longer game ... they have bigger problems than the rule set ....
And no, the end state is BASED on where we started. Which is with a core system based largely around rerolls as a core mechanic. As well as the other items I've mentioned ad nauseum. It is in fat the core rules themselves causing games to take longer. Rerolls, strats and weight of dice. These are what the game has largely been based on even in Index 40k. Now that even GW apparently sees the game is too slow, what are the core rules going to be based on? So far, from what we've seen - rerolls, and strats. No word yet on amount of dice obviously, but it's not looking good ...
Realistically rerolls don't really slow the game down much. Far less than someone having to roll 40+ dice in a single roll.
stronger covers rules are only going to slow the game down more. Also interestingly IMO the best change from 7th to 8th was first turn deep strike being allowed. That certainly sped the game up because it forced action.That should be brought back but with some limitations like maybe on 1/4th of your army can be in reserve or only 1 unit can come in first turn. That kind of stuff.
Smaller table will shorten the game some but the increased cover bonus is just going to slow things down BIG TIME. Huge mistake IMO.
Also - with cover playing such a huge roll in the game now. Players should be able to place the cover themselves and have veto powers and such on certain pieces of terrain.
Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?
Gitdakka wrote: Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?
Because the game uses a D6 system.
In a D6 system flat bonuses have really big effects.
Rerolls offer granularity in the design if you want to give a minor bonus.
Gitdakka wrote: Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?
Because the game uses a D6 system.
In a D6 system flat bonuses have really big effects.
Rerolls offer granularity in the design if you want to give a minor bonus.
But rerolling 3+ to hit vs 2+ to hit is like no difference. 89% hit chance vs 83% hit chance, at the cost of time. Where are the effects so huge vs flat stats bonuses? I dont see the gain here.
Gitdakka wrote: Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?
I agree with you in a sense. With the change in str vs T from 7th to 8th. There should be a lot more weapons with str 14 and 16 or even 18 for example. There could be a lot more T 9 and 10 models too - It seems carry over from 7th eddition with +1 to a stat make something "better" but they really don't. Str 5 spam is just SO effective in this eddition because Toughness was never full exploited as a defensive stat. Between number of shots compared to damage a high str weapon can do and the prevalence of invune saves. spaming lower str light AP weapons is the most effective. It's a big reason why marines do so well currently. They have TONs of shots with ap on them and they almost always hit! If there were more T9 and T10 units in the game that would not work. Melta being str 8 is also a big WTF - Melta should double its str vs armor or something. Anyways my point is. If my choice between weapons is a gun with 6 shots that will wound on 5's at worst and often on 3s vs it's desired target vs a 1 shot weapons that wounds on a 3s at best vs anything its worth shooting at....why would I choose anything else. Don't care if it slows the game down...it is more effective.
I agree refining the stats on units would also work. However - rerolls do offer a degree in-between buffing the stats of things.
Also a big reason why I initially liked the reroll aura on captains is it felt like the captain finally did something instead of just being a tax like in pervious editions. I think a good solution has been pointed out that you just limit the number of units these auras can effect so they don't scale as hard as they usually do. It would also give me a reason to move units out of the aura and explore other opportunity costs. Moving out of an aura to contest and objective is a choice currently because aura effects all units in range. If it had a max of 2 or 3 even I think it would be a big improvement.
At work so I'll keep this short: I only mentioned Iron Hands because they were brought up as prooof of the claims made at the START of 8th were false.
Trying to say playtesters were wrong about the edition because it stopped playing like it did when they made the statements is frankly insultingly poor as an arguement.
And from what I heard the playtesters had said "nerf Iron Hands, this is too strong" and GW tried to claim it was fine. Stop trying to discredit playsters over GW's choices.
At work so I'll keep this short: I only mentioned Iron Hands because they were brought up as prooof of the claims made at the START of 8th were false.
Nobody suggested that Iron Hands had anything to do with how the edition started. I didn't even imply that. I said they were an example of how it doesn't seem to matter that GW has play testers because IH still made it to release. They are the worst example by far,but they are one of MANY examples that should not have made it to release if play testers were catching what they are supposed to catch AND PROVIDED GW USED THEM PROPERLY AND ACTUALLY LISTENED. Clearly one of those things didn't happen, so why should I be excited that they're now claiming "EVEN MOAR PLAY TESTING". The joke amongst most of the community especially at the start of 8th was "Oh - we get it - WE are the beta ..."
Trying to say playtesters were wrong about the edition because it stopped playing like it did when they made the statements is frankly insultingly poor as an arguement.
And from what I heard the playtesters had said "nerf Iron Hands, this is too strong" and GW tried to claim it was fine. Stop trying to discredit playsters over GW's choices.
If you're going to debate w/someone, at least read their posts fully? I don't want derail the thread anymore and you are definately not reading (or at least completely misunderstanding - it's fine that happens) what I'm writing, but I've said, multiple times now, that it's entirely possible testers caught everything and it was ignored. I also said it's entirely possible they were simply asked to work in a manner that would have actively prevented them from discovering the obvious things. The FACT remains, that, for whatever the reason, having play testers completely failed to prevent GW from making the same mistakes they always make in every edition almost without fail.
As far as how the edition started? Like I said, it was less than a month - month and a half at best before we started realizing the game wasn't as fast as advertised. We discovered this with all the same info the play testers would have had prior to the initial release of 8th ...
So again, why should I care what any of the testers have to say now? They were consistently off-base and/or ignored by GW all the way through 8th - so what changed that all of a sudden the same people doing the same thing will now suddenly have positive results? The one thing I'll give you - I don't know if it's true or not, but supposedly the GSC dex got delayed because play testers raised a huge fuss about it being too powerful. So if that's true - that's one for them ...
Gitdakka wrote: Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity.... Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?
Because the game uses a D6 system.
In a D6 system flat bonuses have really big effects.
Rerolls offer granularity in the design if you want to give a minor bonus.
But rerolling 3+ to hit vs 2+ to hit is like no difference. 89% hit chance vs 83% hit chance, at the cost of time. Where are the effects so huge vs flat stats bonuses? I dont see the gain here.
3+ rerollable isn't the only roll being made in a game.
BS5 with rr1 39% BS4 with rr1 58% BS3 with rr1 77% BS2 with rr1 96%
BS5 with full rr 55% BS4 with full rr 75% BS3 with full rr 88% BS2 with full rr 96%
BS 5 with +1 to hit 50% BS 4 with +1 to hit 66% BS 3 with +1 to hit 83% BS 2 with +1 to hit 83%
If you don't use the rerolls, your only achieveable values are: 33%, 50%, 66%, 83%. You can add 17% if you include mali. A total of 5 possible values. By adding rerolls to the picture, you gain: 39%, 55%, 58%, 75%, 77%, 88%, 96%. If you consider the interaction with mali, you also get 20% and 30%.
By including rerolls you triple the possible accuracy values of a model.
@speletta
I still don't see the purpose of having +-6-8% accuracy compared to the base roll chances instead of just using the regular +-16%. You could also add auto hit instead of that extreme 96% hit chance, because 96 bolter hits compared to a 100 is not really important in the grand scheme of the game right?
I just dont understand why a hit chart inculding those tiny value shifts would be more fun than the five regular hit chances (16, 33, 50, 66, 83, autohit). I mean this is just the hit roll. There are lots of other offence vs defence rolls to follow. I think the time saved by not having rerolls would justify a simple hit chart.
Isnt the problem with re-rolls not the small buff to hit on a single roll, but the fact that armies are rolling 100+ dice per turn. A 6-8% higher hit chance on one shot isn't much, but with 100+ dice its can mean 5 msu models rolling extra wounds, which then can mean easier spread of fire.
The added granularity from rerolls isn't worth the cost in dice-rolling, certainly not for full rerolls, and certainly not for a faction that hits on 3+ to begin with. And it definitely isn't worth the cost in a world with modifiers capped at +1/-1, because in that environment it actually reduces granularity by making it impossible to go below 75% accuracy for the faction that has easiest access to it.
I don't think reroll 1s is worth it either, but it doesn't bother me (or anyone else). Whenever people talk about rerolls being a problem 99% of the time it is full rerolls they're talking about.
It's not only that, though it's mostly that. MA/EC spam with single entity units is a problem too, particularly EC in eldar lists. Especially since those let you reroll wounds, too.
EC has the added problem of making it difficult to balance CWE single entity units because they get such a massive bonus from it that they end up being borderline overpowered with it, but borderline underpowered without it.
IMO aura and faction-based rerolls should be 1s only; the full reroll should be reserved for strats and unit or weapon specific abilities (e.g. lightning claws, or tankbustas' reroll ability).
Stuff like the troupe master's reroll wounds aura is ok because it is so limited in effect (melee only, and the faction has nothing above S5 weapons). Though you could change that too if you just compensated by giving quins some actual high S melee options.
yukishiro1 wrote: IMO aura and faction-based rerolls should be 1s only; the full reroll should be reserved for strats and unit or weapon specific abilities (e.g. lightning claws, or tankbustas' reroll ability).
Stuff the troupe master's reroll wounds aura is ok because it is so limited in effect (melee only, and the faction has nothing above S5 weapons). Though you could change that too if you just compensated by giving quins some actual high S melee options.
I'd go even further. Auras shouldn't grant generic re-rolls, but only to some specific units. I mean that auras shouldn't work for friendly <FACTION> units but only for single specific units.
Like Badrukk that grants the aura only for Flash Gitz, all the other characters with similar auras should give their bonus only to a single specific unit. A SM Captain who only gives his re-rolls to Hellblasters for example or an Archon who only buffs Ravagers.
Spoletta wrote: No, 99% of the time they are talking about the Chapter Master stratagem.
I think that solving ONE stratagem is better than changing a whole mechanic.
How does that work for the chapter masters that are actual data sheets? (Shrike etc)
I have less of an issue with those.
First of all they all come with a theme to them and a cost to reflect the full package.
You want Shrike? Then you also get the bonus to jump packs and phobos in the package. plus a decent beatstick with quite a good mobility. You are paying 50 points more over a generic primaris captain for it. He is also easier to kill than the generic alternative.
It encourages you to play to the theme, since you are already paying for it. I like it. Everything that adds theme is good. We can discuss about it being undercosted, but the concept is fine.
All the chapter masters are like him, with the exception of Marneus. Ultramarine stick is to big flexible, so it makes sense that the Chapter Master is not tied to a specific theme. He also pays for it with an hefty cost.
I have big issues with the current CM stratagem because it is a generic "I need to make a marine list, let's start with a captain to use the stratagem". Also, it makes zero sense that first founding chapters can use it when they already have a Chapter Master.
Spoletta wrote: That would promote skewed lists and castiling even more.
It's the exact opposite since only 1-3 units in the any codex would get the benefit of a re-roll aura. Like Flash Gitz for orks, which are the only dudes in their faction that can benefit from a re-rolling 1s aura. I don't see why SM or any other faction should get possible re-rolls for everyone.
This way the majority of the units would play differently than castling since they'd get no bonus from characters' auras.
yukishiro1 wrote: IMO aura and faction-based rerolls should be 1s only; the full reroll should be reserved for strats and unit or weapon specific abilities (e.g. lightning claws, or tankbustas' reroll ability).
Stuff like the troupe master's reroll wounds aura is ok because it is so limited in effect (melee only, and the faction has nothing above S5 weapons). Though you could change that too if you just compensated by giving quins some actual high S melee options.
I am still firmly of the opinion that reroll auras should not be 'Always On'.
Make them all once per game for one turn.
It makes it a far more strategic ability - do you hit it for turn one alpha strike? Save it for later when your opponent's reserves start showing up?
At that point, the CM strategem is not quite so auto-take.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Well with the leaks today we can see that auras are still 100% a thing.
Aslong as the CM strat exsists Marines are going to be bonkers in 9th.
89 hit ratio degrading to 75% vrs a -1 to hit makes it impossible for most armies to surivive against that.
Gitdakka wrote: Why do we even need rerolls? Hit-wound-save-fnp that is already 1296 possible outcomes for that simple roll sequence. You cant tell me this needs more granularity....
Something needs to be tougher? Increase its toughness, wounds, save or hit modifier. Something needs to be more destructive in some way? Give it more rate of fire, strength, ap, mortal wounds or whatever. Why is rerolls needed in addition to these already existing systems?
Because the game uses a D6 system.
In a D6 system flat bonuses have really big effects.
Rerolls offer granularity in the design if you want to give a minor bonus.
But rerolling 3+ to hit vs 2+ to hit is like no difference. 89% hit chance vs 83% hit chance, at the cost of time. Where are the effects so huge vs flat stats bonuses? I dont see the gain here.
3+ rerollable isn't the only roll being made in a game.
BS5 with rr1 39%
BS4 with rr1 58%
BS3 with rr1 77%
BS2 with rr1 96%
BS5 with full rr 55%
BS4 with full rr 75%
BS3 with full rr 88%
BS2 with full rr 96%
BS 5 with +1 to hit 50%
BS 4 with +1 to hit 66%
BS 3 with +1 to hit 83%
BS 2 with +1 to hit 83%
If you don't use the rerolls, your only achieveable values are: 33%, 50%, 66%, 83%. You can add 17% if you include mali. A total of 5 possible values.
By adding rerolls to the picture, you gain: 39%, 55%, 58%, 75%, 77%, 88%, 96%. If you consider the interaction with mali, you also get 20% and 30%.
By including rerolls you triple the possible accuracy values of a model.
While an interesting point, and certainly true. . . it's still not necessary. I don't recall gobs of rerolls for earlier editions and most of those editions played just fine. The added granularity isn't really adding to the QOL of the product, imo.
They could definitely reduce the rerolls, at least. I half suspect however, that the eggregious marine rerolls are simply there to reduce feel-bad moments for new players as they push their starter kits around. Playing either earlier editions or other armies (like My Nids) is so refreshing for their comparative lack of rerolls.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Well with the leaks today we can see that auras are still 100% a thing.
Aslong as the CM strat exsists Marines are going to be bonkers in 9th.
89 hit ratio degrading to 75% vrs a -1 to hit makes it impossible for most armies to surivive against that.
I have stopped using the CM strat for that reason, I do run a couple smash captains now but I don’t castle up with a captain or CM anymore. If I were going to a tournament then I might but in casual games I have stopped using the CM strat completely.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Well with the leaks today we can see that auras are still 100% a thing.
Aslong as the CM strat exsists Marines are going to be bonkers in 9th.
89 hit ratio degrading to 75% vrs a -1 to hit makes it impossible for most armies to surivive against that.
Haha, yeah. . . The CM strat has been the first thing that's happened in every one of my marine games since the start of 8th. It's such an auto-take.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Well with the leaks today we can see that auras are still 100% a thing.
Aslong as the CM strat exsists Marines are going to be bonkers in 9th.
89 hit ratio degrading to 75% vrs a -1 to hit makes it impossible for most armies to surivive against that.
Haha, yeah. . . The CM strat has been the first thing that's happened in every one of my marine games since the start of 8th. It's such an auto-take.
It is way to strong, needs a CP bump or complete removal, when super stacked -hit modifiers were a thing it was a useful counter with a cap of -1 to hit roll it is no longer needed. The reroll 1s aura seems fine though.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Well with the leaks today we can see that auras are still 100% a thing.
Aslong as the CM strat exsists Marines are going to be bonkers in 9th.
89 hit ratio degrading to 75% vrs a -1 to hit makes it impossible for most armies to surivive against that.
Haha, yeah. . . The CM strat has been the first thing that's happened in every one of my marine games since the start of 8th. It's such an auto-take.
It is way to strong, needs a CP bump or complete removal, when super stacked -hit modifiers were a thing it was a useful counter with a cap of -1 to hit roll it is no longer needed. The reroll 1s aura seems fine though.
I can agree with that. I hate the bubble, it's not how marines should be operating. I long for the days (4th) when Rites of Battle was not a reroll and just a table-wide ability that Captains brought.
yukishiro1 wrote: Gotta hope the CM strat is going away in the new space marines codex, it's just so utterly stupid that I have some hope that even GW realizes it.
Pretty much, or at least make it 4CP, that would make it a little more appropriate. Could also make it just add something else instead of converting to full rerolls, like reroll 1s and ignore the first -1 to hit penalty to units in range. Would still be useful but not nearly as strong as reroll everything.
yukishiro1 wrote: Gotta hope the CM strat is going away in the new space marines codex, it's just so utterly stupid that I have some hope that even GW realizes it.
Pretty much, or at least make it 4CP, that would make it a little more appropriate. Could also make it just add something else instead of converting to full rerolls, like reroll 1s and ignore the first -1 to hit penalty to units in range. Would still be useful but not nearly as strong as reroll everything.
It's too good even at 4 CP. Make its fair at 8 CP.
