- Page 67 – Manifesting Psychic powers, first paragraphAdd the following sentence:‘The same Psyker unit cannot attempt to manifest Smite more than once during the same battle round.’
- Tweaks to Look Out Sir
- Page 85 – Obscuring, second paragraph, first sentence Change this sentence to read:‘Models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.’
- Page 85 – Heavy Cover Change this paragraph to read:‘When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model that the attack is allocated to made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
- A rule that prevents Falling Back takes precedence over Desperate Breakout Stratagem (pg 79)
- Ta’unar Supremacy Armour up to 1040 base
- Fortifications cannot be placed into Strategic Reserves.
- Page 67 – Manifesting Psychic powers, first paragraphAdd the following sentence:‘The same Psyker unit cannot attempt to manifest Smite more than once during the same battle round.’
- Tweaks to Look Out Sir
- Page 85 – Obscuring, second paragraph, first sentence Change this sentence to read:‘Models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.’
- Page 85 – Heavy Cover Change this paragraph to read:‘When an attack made with a melee weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack unless the model that the attack is allocated to made a charge move this turn (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).
- A rule that prevents Falling Back takes precedence over Desperate Breakout Stratagem (pg 79)
- Ta’unar Supremacy Armour up to 1040 base
- Fortifications cannot be placed into Strategic Reserves.
RIP - Ta’unar Tau meta - July 2020 - August 2020. Can I get an F in the chat?
SamusDrake wrote: Power levels for Harlequins seem decent. Voidweavers should be a better option now.
Death jesters got nerfed though, especially dreaming shadow ones. Not much point in jest inescapable any more either. No more chance of stacking mortal wounds.
For a Vehicle or Monster to protect a character jt has to be ten or more wounds now. No more Daemon Princes or Character Dreadnoughts guarding each other.
Also, strats that refund CP are no longer subject to the one-per-round restriction, although I suspect they'll have to FAQ the FAQ because now as written if you have a unit ability/relic/whatever that refunds CP you can get your 1 from that and then use your CP regen strat on top of it.
Also, strats that refund CP are no longer subject to the one-per-round restriction, although I suspect they'll have to FAQ the FAQ because now as written if you have a unit ability/relic/whatever that refunds CP you can get your 1 from that and then use your CP regen strat on top of it.
Why exactly do you expect an FAQ to revert a change that explicitly allows that scenario? The intent here appears pretty clearly to want that occurrence to be a possibility.
What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.
- Page 67 – Manifesting Psychic powers, first paragraphAdd the following sentence:‘The same Psyker unit cannot attempt to manifest Smite more than once during the same battle round.’
Ouch. That is a GOOD edit of course, but I was really hoping they would return Psychic Focus. I'm guessing this probably means that wasn't an accidental omission and we really aren't getting that back. Probably the final nail in the coffin for my poor Tsons. They faired well in the points debacle, but so much about 9th has pretty much been a swift kick in the nethers for them. Hopefully they get psychic focus back in their codex. Smite was the only reliable anti-armor we really had ...
Also, strats that refund CP are no longer subject to the one-per-round restriction, although I suspect they'll have to FAQ the FAQ because now as written if you have a unit ability/relic/whatever that refunds CP you can get your 1 from that and then use your CP regen strat on top of it.
Why exactly do you expect an FAQ to revert a change that explicitly allows that scenario? The intent here appears pretty clearly to want that occurrence to be a possibility.
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly (a strong possibility) it used to be "you can only get a single CP refunded unless it's coming from one of these specific sources that can refund several, and in those cases you can still only refund CP from a single source", in which case a lot of people are going to wonder if GW intended the original meaning and wrote it incorrectly again.
Gregor Samsa wrote:What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.
PL interacts with multiple systems in 9th, and the values havent been adjusted (with a tiny handful of specific exceptions) since the Index days of 8th. It was a critical update, whether you like it or not.
The Newman wrote:
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly (a strong possibility) it used to be "you can only get a single CP refunded unless it's coming from one of these specific sources that can refund several, and in those cases you can still only refund CP from a single source", in which case a lot of people are going to wonder if GW intended the original meaning and wrote it incorrectly again.
That is indeed what it used to be, and it mooted multiple options for multiple armies because they couldnt overlap anymore. There's a middle ground for CP gain between the old Aquila + Grand Strategist days, and the hard cap of only ever getting one per battle round. We've been seeing them creep back into codices and supplements, and this change allows those additions to do more than collect dust.
i mean i guess....it seems as though it would have been better for players to simply spend the time repointing units for the release of 9th rather than poorly develop two parallel systems at the same time.
Gregor Samsa wrote: What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.
Considering a LOT of people are showing an interest in Crusade which uses PL I don't think its a waste. I would prefer points myself but I like the idea of an army with narrative growth of more than granularity min/maxing.
Gregor Samsa wrote: i mean i guess....it seems as though it would have been better for players to simply spend the time repointing units for the release of 9th rather than poorly develop two parallel systems at the same time.
You do understand that the new PL are a derived value from the new points costs for 9th edition right?
Yeah, this is massive. Warboss on Bike might be our best HQ in 9th, and it's no longer legal.
Use the war trike?
You're joking right?
They are not substitutes.
1) Wartrike is a gunboat. It's best used with the Gork's Roar and trying to flame / melta stuff.
2) It cannot take our Relic Klaw, so is stuck on Dd3 Damage and str 7. It cannot take any useful relics anymore (the only good one for it was in a specialist detachment)
3) It has a massive base. It's hard to hide it and use it aggressively.
4) It cannot take Da Biggest Boss strat and gain a 4+ invul.
Wartrike is fine in its own right, but it cannot compare to the Biker Boss in damage consistency and melee threat.
the problem is that right now building lists with either provided points or using power level produces skewed or broken lists because they're not in good shape. This just seems like an odd hill to die on....I am principally a crusade player and would love to use PL. but I would even more like to have one system that works rather than two that sort of do not.
SamusDrake wrote: Power levels for Harlequins seem decent. Voidweavers should be a better option now.
Death jesters got nerfed though, especially dreaming shadow ones. Not much point in jest inescapable any more either. No more chance of stacking mortal wounds.
Not even for the extra 12" range? But seriously, I got a feeling Harlequins and Deathwatch could be among the first codices for 9th edition as they went straight to WD for their PA updates. Somewhere in the next 12 months, I reckon...
Attacks that have a special thing that triggers on a 6, like additional attacks, do not then trigger additional effects.
So, for example, the Chaos rule where you generate more attacks on a 6 to-hit against Imperium forces. If you were using the Death Guard flails which blow up into several hits, attacks generated by the Death to the False Emperor do *not* flail explode.
Huh.
Not sure where all this comes up off the top of my head, but, interesting.
(Same applies to Mortal Wounds, Shurkien/Rending claws effects, and so on. Extra attacks never get additional rules, just "hit or miss" and that's it. Huh.)
So We Have Come For You takes precedent over Desperate Breakout and the Kharybdis is back. Good.
Why has stuff that went up in points gone down in pl? Chosen, warp talons, and land raiders all down.
Everything didn't go down though. Fellblades up to 44pl. So 14 more than a baneblade, 9 more than an astreus, and 12 more than a Castellan. Why does gw hate this model?
Why has stuff that went up in points gone down in pl? Chosen, warp talons, and land raiders all down.
Because the PL values that are being adjusted were from the Index days of 8th. In many cases there have been *years* of points decreases unaccounted for. Some units may have gone up in points from CA2018 -> CA2019, but compared to their original Index values are still changed enough to fit into decreased PL value results.
Gregor Samsa wrote: What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.
Seeing points are also junk for balance if you want balance you use neitker.
And as hard as it might be for you to imagine there are fans for pl. Not everybody takes 40k as some competive game of skill it isnt. Trying to play it as such just shows you don't understand how 40k works
Good to see the Corsairs still exist under FW Eldar.
I might be missing something here - what's the title on the datasheet for Mephiston's Primaris version? I only see Chief Librarian Mephiston in the table, while the model shows as "Mephiston, Lord of Blood" on the webstore. See also Tigurius, Ragnar Blackmane, and assorted versions of Marneus Calgar. I wasn't aware of the proper versions of these characters making it to Legends, but I may have missed something.
Frankly, that update PDF really needed a ToC - Forge World appearing in the middle threw me.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So We Have Come For You takes precedent over Desperate Breakout and the Kharybdis is back. Good.
Why has stuff that went up in points gone down in pl? Chosen, warp talons, and land raiders all down.
Everything didn't go down though. Fellblades up to 44pl. So 14 more than a baneblade, 9 more than an astreus, and 12 more than a Castellan. Why does gw hate this model?
Isn't it because of weapon options going down in pts? They average out the most expensive and least expensive loadout for a unit so that might have led to it. Better nerf Fellblade might have to become a meme, it's funny because Castellan went down in pts.
Gregor Samsa wrote: What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.
I'll have to second that adjusting PL is real easy, this can't have taken more than a week for an intern to do. If you had a list building application then it would be even easier since you wouldn't have to calculate the max and min costs in excel.
Gregor Samsa wrote: i mean i guess....it seems as though it would have been better for players to simply spend the time repointing units for the release of 9th rather than poorly develop two parallel systems at the same time.
Repointing the game ought to be a vastly larger effort than calculating PL, several people would have to work on pts for a couple of weeks and 100+ playtests would need to be organized in such a manner that every unit is tested a couple of time. As it is CA20 Munitorum Field Manual isn't worth the paper it's been printed on and I doubt what little effort went into this system could have saved the flustercluck that is 9th pts.
a bit weird that Astra Militarum can still take Crusaders in packs of ten. So should we use the new Sisters of Battle datasheet for the rest of the rules but our own old for the number of models?
Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
Pyroalchi wrote: a bit weird that Astra Militarum can still take Crusaders in packs of ten. So should we use the new Sisters of Battle datasheet for the rest of the rules but our own old for the number of models?
Why would you be using the SoB datasheet in the first place? There's nothing in the Guard FAQ to indicat you should do so, as far as I could see.
Tristanleo wrote: Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
Same reason Chaos Marines get +1 to wound for a single CP, while Imperial Fists pay 2 CP with the added restriction of only working against vehicles only, etc..
Or Alpha Legion get's to make a unit untargetable, no questions asked, while Salamanders have to have another 5 man unit in 6" and only that unit screens and only if that unit itself is visible and targetable and a million other hoops, etc.
Tristanleo wrote: Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
It's a lore-based rule to represent the logistical demands of lugging around and replacing all those extra spikes.
Just like how the Aggressor's shoot twice ability is a lore-based rule to represent... the fact that standing still doubles the rate of fire of your gun!
Tristanleo wrote: Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
Same reason Chaos Marines get +1 to wound for a single CP, while Imperial Fists pay 2 CP with the added restriction of only working against vehicles only, etc..
Or Alpha Legion get's to make a unit untargetable, no questions asked, while Salamanders have to have another 5 man unit in 6" and only that unit screens and only if that unit itself is visible and targetable and a million other hoops, etc.
Stuff isn't equal across books. Simples.
You're wrong on a few levels there, salamanders also get a balnket +1 to wound strat, likewise renegade chaos marines can't use veterans. So my red corsairs 6pl lord that can't use +1 to wound strats is identical to a salamanders captain who can for 5pl.
Gregor Samsa wrote: What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.
Seeing points are also junk for balance if you want balance you use neitker.
And as hard as it might be for you to imagine there are fans for pl. Not everybody takes 40k as some competive game of skill it isnt. Trying to play it as such just shows you don't understand how 40k works
Got in there before I could!
Yeah, even if you like or dislike it, some of us prefer PL, and it's good to see that they're being kept up-to-date (even if I now have to recalculate what all my armies now cost!)
Gadzilla666 wrote: So We Have Come For You takes precedent over Desperate Breakout and the Kharybdis is back. Good.
Why has stuff that went up in points gone down in pl? Chosen, warp talons, and land raiders all down.
Everything didn't go down though. Fellblades up to 44pl. So 14 more than a baneblade, 9 more than an astreus, and 12 more than a Castellan. Why does gw hate this model?
Isn't it because of weapon options going down in pts? They average out the most expensive and least expensive loadout for a unit so that might have led to it. Better nerf Fellblade might have to become a meme, it's funny because Castellan went down in pts.
It isn't funny if you own one and would like to actually be able to play it. Doesn't gw know how good a 5++ that can be boosted to a 4++ is on a super heavy?
Repointing the game ought to be a vastly larger effort than calculating PL, several people would have to work on pts for a couple of weeks and 100+ playtests would need to be organized in such a manner that every unit is tested a couple of time. As it is CA20 Munitorum Field Manual isn't worth the paper it's been printed on and I doubt what little effort went into this system could have saved the flustercluck that is 9th pts.
Big agreement on that one.
Tristanleo wrote:Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
Probably the same insane reason that Exalted Champions are more expensive than primaris lieutenants.
Tristanleo wrote: Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
Same reason Chaos Marines get +1 to wound for a single CP, while Imperial Fists pay 2 CP with the added restriction of only working against vehicles only, etc..
Or Alpha Legion get's to make a unit untargetable, no questions asked, while Salamanders have to have another 5 man unit in 6" and only that unit screens and only if that unit itself is visible and targetable and a million other hoops, etc.
Stuff isn't equal across books. Simples.
You're wrong on a few levels there, salamanders also get a balnket +1 to wound strat, likewise renegade chaos marines can't use veterans. So my red corsairs 6pl lord that can't use +1 to wound strats is identical to a salamanders captain who can for 5pl.
Still doesn't change that things are not "matched" across books.
The White Scars 1 CP outflank is flat-out better than the Space Wolves one. The 2 CP "Chapter Master" is insanely more powerful than the 2 CP "Great Harlequin" upgrade. CSM +1 to wound strat might be mirrored by Salamanders, but it's not tied to one specific Chaos Legion (e.g. Word Bearers), even if Renegades cannot take it. Grey Knights Fight-on-Death is 1 CP, while it's 2 CP for most other Marines. GSC "Cloud of Flies" is twice as pricy as the Death Guard version AND only works if you're wholly on a terrain feature, while Death Guard (or Alpha Legion) don't care. Craftworld Buffs / Debuffs like Quicken or Jinx cannot benefit Drukhari or Harlequins, but Death Guard or Black Legion still get benefits from a Thousand Sons Warptime or Death Hex, Etc.., etc.., etc..
Does it make sense that tac marines and intercessors have the exact same PL? It seems weird to me, given the latter has twice the number of wounds. Are the extra weapon options on the tac squad really that powerful, or is this just GW trying to ruin old marines on purpose?
BilboSwaggins wrote:Does it make sense that tac marines and intercessors have the exact same PL? It seems weird to me, given the latter has twice the number of wounds. Are the extra weapon options on the tac squad really that powerful, or is this just GW trying to ruin old marines on purpose?
It's a lore-based rule to represent the logistical demands of lugging around all that extra historical baggage.
Just like how the Eradicator's shoot twice ability is a lore-based rule to represent... the fact that targeting a single enemy administrative unit doubles the rate of fire of your gun!
BilboSwaggins wrote: Does it make sense that tac marines and intercessors have the exact same PL? It seems weird to me, given the latter has twice the number of wounds. Are the extra weapon options on the tac squad really that powerful, or is this just GW trying to ruin old marines on purpose?
That just reflects their points cost including war gear.
Tristanleo wrote: Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
Same reason Chaos Marines get +1 to wound for a single CP, while Imperial Fists pay 2 CP with the added restriction of only working against vehicles only, etc..
Or Alpha Legion get's to make a unit untargetable, no questions asked, while Salamanders have to have another 5 man unit in 6" and only that unit screens and only if that unit itself is visible and targetable and a million other hoops, etc.
Stuff isn't equal across books. Simples.
You're wrong on a few levels there, salamanders also get a balnket +1 to wound strat, likewise renegade chaos marines can't use veterans. So my red corsairs 6pl lord that can't use +1 to wound strats is identical to a salamanders captain who can for 5pl.
Still doesn't change that things are not "matched" across books.
The White Scars 1 CP outflank is flat-out better than the Space Wolves one. The 2 CP "Chapter Master" is insanely more powerful than the 2 CP "Great Harlequin" upgrade. CSM +1 to wound strat might be mirrored by Salamanders, but it's not tied to one specific Chaos Legion (e.g. Word Bearers), even if Renegades cannot take it. Grey Knights Fight-on-Death is 1 CP, while it's 2 CP for most other Marines. GSC "Cloud of Flies" is twice as pricy as the Death Guard version AND only works if you're wholly on a terrain feature, while Death Guard (or Alpha Legion) don't care. Craftworld Buffs / Debuffs like Quicken or Jinx cannot benefit Drukhari or Harlequins, but Death Guard or Black Legion still get benefits from a Thousand Sons Warptime or Death Hex, Etc.., etc.., etc..
There is no reason a chaos lord should be more than a captain though, objectively speaking. There is no reason a chaos lord is worth more in a chaos marines army than a captain is in a marines army.
It being consistently poorly represented over time doesn't excuse poor practice.
Tristanleo wrote: Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
BilboSwaggins wrote: Does it make sense that tac marines and intercessors have the exact same PL? It seems weird to me, given the latter has twice the number of wounds. Are the extra weapon options on the tac squad really that powerful, or is this just GW trying to ruin old marines on purpose?
The extra weapons are absolutely that powerful. Tac Marines can be better at killing Primaris Marines than Primaris are.
Tristanleo wrote: Everyone else is getting into the minute details, I'm just sat here wondering how, despite having the exact same stats, a chaos lord is worth 6 power level when a captain is worth 5...
That's a damn good question.
The Spike Tax continues.
Pyroalchi wrote:I'm slightly p***ed of that they removed the Gorgon again. Just when Forgeworld brought the awesome model back.
If they're still selling the model then they probably just forgot about it like they did the Kharybdis. The one thing gw is consistent about is screwing up.
Edit:
All Contemptors are the same at 9PL, same as points. That makes total sense. Why are loyalist Land Raider Achilles 17PL but the Hellforged Achilles is 20PL? Excellent work just like the ca points "rebalance".
Holy crap. Stompas are 46PL, so even more than a Fellblade. Do any Ork players want to start a support group for owners of models gw hates?
Unfortunately it looks like PL is as Unbalanced as Points for 9th edition. Well oh well only 15 months at most before CA 2021 is released and we can all see what insanity GW is trying to sell.
So... new look out sir... Looks like harlequins are proper fethed, doesn't it.
Screening our characters with our transports was like 80% of what we did. We don't HAVE any units with 10 or more wounds. Now there are only 2 units in the whole codex that can screen, and neither of them are going to be near shadowseers, death jesters, or solitaires.
Yeah, this is massive. Warboss on Bike might be our best HQ in 9th, and it's no longer legal.
Did you miss the memo? Only Space Marines get bike characters these days.
Marines lost a LARGE number of bike characters. Libby's chappies, apocatharies, company ancients, company champions, don't act like Marines didn't get his by the old "no model, rules are legends" shift. Marines didn't lose bike captains because a bike captain model exists.
but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your attacks on Marines
Yeah, this is massive. Warboss on Bike might be our best HQ in 9th, and it's no longer legal.
Did you miss the memo? Only Space Marines get bike characters these days.
Marines lost a LARGE number of bike characters. Libby's chappies, apocatharies, company ancients, company champions, don't act like Marines didn't get his by the old "no model, rules are legends" shift. Marines didn't lose bike captains because a bike captain model exists.
but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your attacks on Marines
Erm - you want to back up that "SM Captain on Bike" exists claim, Brian, assuming we're talking generic SM here? I'm not seeing it on the GW webstore, and the only generic "SM character on bike" I recall getting released since the plastic Bike came out was the Chaplain on bike.
WS have a Khan on a Bike model, but from memory that has a specific datasheet in the WS supplement.
Even the DA don't have a "Master on Bike" model listed, mainly because Sammael has either a jetbike or a custom land speeder to be riding.
Yeah, this is massive. Warboss on Bike might be our best HQ in 9th, and it's no longer legal.
Did you miss the memo? Only Space Marines get bike characters these days.
Marines lost a LARGE number of bike characters. Libby's chappies, apocatharies, company ancients, company champions, don't act like Marines didn't get his by the old "no model, rules are legends" shift. Marines didn't lose bike captains because a bike captain model exists.
but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your attacks on Marines
Erm - you want to back up that "SM Captain on Bike" exists claim, Brian, assuming we're talking generic SM here? I'm not seeing it on the GW webstore, and the only generic "SM character on bike" I recall getting released since the plastic Bike came out was the Chaplain on bike.
WS have a Khan on a Bike model, but from memory that has a specific datasheet in the WS supplement.
Even the DA don't have a "Master on Bike" model listed, mainly because Sammael has either a jetbike or a custom land speeder to be riding.
pretty sure legends came out before the codex and it's supplements, and thus GW counted the WS bike captain as a generic bike captain.
Gw really wants to kill faction terrain. Most have junk rules and now deploying them got harder. Sister one takes nearly 11"x11" no terrain area. Good luck. Good thing never got around buying 2nd. Not playing at 55 pts disadvantage is hard enough with 1 and 110 pts behind would be rough
It annoys me that PL is supposed to encourage fluffy gameplay, and yet 10 Intercessors or 10 Bolter Marines in a Tac squad both cost 10PL but are 200 points and 150 points respectively.
Now, I want to play Crusade using Firstborn Marines using no upgrades except a missile launcher for 165 points, but unless I want to deliberately penalise myself 17.5% compared to my Primaris friend, I pretty much have to max out the weaponry in my Tac squad. And no, it doesn't all even out in the end. The PL seem to be based on maxed out squads rather than typical squads. Just because I want to play narrative, doesn't mean I want to deliberately be underpowered.
Seriously, I HATE PL and I hate that they do the opposite of what they are supposedly meant to. And I hate the lack of maths ability amongst most people that even made this necessary.
Dukeofstuff wrote: Does this mean if my flyer falls below ten wounds it no longer character protects my guy?
This is VERY important to my army, so I ain't asking to stir any pots.
Your flyer is still a 12-wound model, even if it's currently on 1 wound because it's been shot a lot.
Otherwise, characters that have more than 10 wounds, would suddenly become untargetable when they drop to 9 wounds.
They've gotten a little better about clarity of wording on this issue; the rule does specify that it applies to models with a "wounds characteristic of 10 or more" (emphasis added).
Fifty wrote: It annoys me that PL is supposed to encourage fluffy gameplay, and yet 10 Intercessors or 10 Bolter Marines in a Tac squad both cost 10PL but are 200 points and 150 points respectively.
Now, I want to play Crusade using Firstborn Marines using no upgrades except a missile launcher for 165 points, but unless I want to deliberately penalise myself 17.5% compared to my Primaris friend, I pretty much have to max out the weaponry in my Tac squad. And no, it doesn't all even out in the end. The PL seem to be based on maxed out squads rather than typical squads. Just because I want to play narrative, doesn't mean I want to deliberately be underpowered.
I hate to break it to you, but a fluffy 10-man Tactical Squad will have a special and a heavy weapon. Depending on your choice of weapons, that puts you between 165 (Flamer and Heavy Bolter) and 180 points (Plasma Gun and Multi-melta). Slap a few special weapons on your Sarge and you are closing in on 200 points. Still to be fair, they should probably be more like 8 CP for a 10-man squad. It's weapons for the Sarge that inflate the value of the 5 man squad to be closer to Intercessor points.
Fifty wrote: It annoys me that PL is supposed to encourage fluffy gameplay, and yet 10 Intercessors or 10 Bolter Marines in a Tac squad both cost 10PL but are 200 points and 150 points respectively.
Now, I want to play Crusade using Firstborn Marines using no upgrades except a missile launcher for 165 points, but unless I want to deliberately penalise myself 17.5% compared to my Primaris friend, I pretty much have to max out the weaponry in my Tac squad. And no, it doesn't all even out in the end. The PL seem to be based on maxed out squads rather than typical squads. Just because I want to play narrative, doesn't mean I want to deliberately be underpowered.
I hate to break it to you, but a fluffy 10-man Tactical Squad will have a special and a heavy weapon. Depending on your choice of weapons, that puts you between 165 (Flamer and Heavy Bolter) and 180 points (Plasma Gun and Multi-melta). Slap a few special weapons on your Sarge and you are closing in on 200 points. Still to be fair, they should probably be more like 8 CP for a 10-man squad. It's weapons for the Sarge that inflate the value of the 5 man squad to be closer to Intercessor points.
Tacticals are comparatively overcosted (or Primaris are comparatively undercosted, however you want to look at it) in points to begin with, though; the PL costs are exacerbating it further. A plasma gun, multimelta, and powerfist + plasma pistol on the sergeant still aren't nearly as valuable as having twice as many wounds, 50% more attacks in melee, AP-1, and 6" more range.
Gregor Samsa wrote: What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.
Why is the regular Chaos Lord the same as the Terminator one? I get that it's faster, but this can be negated by the Terminator's ability to deepstrike.
Something I don't see being talked about much -- unless I missed the thread -- the new LOS change is quite damaging to several armies and builds.
DE are quite sparse on their ability to guard their HQs with vehicles as is GSC (hello, Court, I guess?). Mini and character dreads got slapped. Talonmasters can't hide behind less than 3 landspeeders. Vypers. Warwalkers. Sentinels. Buggies.
I'm just glad they made the Magaera and Styrix usable again. 55 points drop on my Magaera. I was hoping the points was an oversight, there's no way a Magaera is worth more points than most Cerastus knights. Now it's pretty solid points.
Which is good, because I just finished painting mine today.
Daedalus81 wrote:Something I don't see being talked about much -- unless I missed the thread -- the new LOS change is quite damaging to several armies and builds.
DE are quite sparse on their ability to guard their HQs with vehicles as is GSC (hello, Court, I guess?). Mini and character dreads got slapped. Talonmasters can't hide behind less than 3 landspeeders. Vypers. Warwalkers. Sentinels. Buggies.
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.
It's been brought up, just hasn't seemed to stick yet. It's an odd change, as I'd think a simple "characters don't count for Look Out Sir" would have sufficed (obviously worded in a much more complicated and legalistic way).
chimeara wrote:I'm just glad they made the Magaera and Styrix usable again. 55 points drop on my Magaera. I was hoping the points was an oversight, there's no way a Magaera is worth more points than most Cerastus knights. Now it's pretty solid points.
Which is good, because I just finished painting mine today.
Glad to see at least some of the big fw models got some love.
Tacticals are comparatively overcosted (or Primaris are comparatively undercosted, however you want to look at it) in points to begin with, though; the PL costs are exacerbating it further. A plasma gun, multimelta, and powerfist + plasma pistol on the sergeant still aren't nearly as valuable as having twice as many wounds, 50% more attacks in melee, AP-1, and 6" more range.
primaris are differently under priced. space wolves grey hunters and even blood claws cost more, wtf?
Daedalus81 wrote: Something I don't see being talked about much -- unless I missed the thread -- the new LOS change is quite damaging to several armies and builds.
DE are quite sparse on their ability to guard their HQs with vehicles as is GSC (hello, Court, I guess?). Mini and character dreads got slapped. Talonmasters can't hide behind less than 3 landspeeders. Vypers. Warwalkers. Sentinels. Buggies.
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.
Go read ork tactics thread. Apart from loss of warboss on bike this is one they are fuming about. Speed freak armies got harder, mek gun spam got nerfed.
Ork players have learned to fear new faq arrivals. Every time that happens something gets removed or nerfed to death.
tneva82 wrote: Go read ork tactics thread. Apart from loss of warboss on bike this is one they are fuming about. Speed freak armies got harder, mek gun spam got nerfed.
Ork players have learned to fear new faq arrivals. Every time that happens something gets removed or nerfed to death.
GW thinks orks should be unfun to play as, apparently. Just a perennial loser faction for Primaris players to dunk on.
It's been brought up, just hasn't seemed to stick yet. It's an odd change, as I'd think a simple "characters don't count for Look Out Sir" would have sufficed (obviously worded in a much more complicated and legalistic way).
I'm of two minds. I don't think super-friends was their only goal here. Kicking talonmasters and character dreads in the nuts is a greatly welcome change from this end. Not being able to use dreads to cover units stinks, but i'll deal.
It's been brought up, just hasn't seemed to stick yet. It's an odd change, as I'd think a simple "characters don't count for Look Out Sir" would have sufficed (obviously worded in a much more complicated and legalistic way).
I'm of two minds. I don't think super-friends was their only goal here. Kicking talonmasters and character dreads in the nuts is a greatly welcome change from this end. Not being able to use dreads to cover units stinks, but i'll deal.
You still can, just not with box dreads. Makes a loyalist firebase of relic contemptors around a chapter master look like an even better option, especially with the silly points buff those contemptors received in ca.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...
I can't say if they're unforeseen or not. The old rule went through a lot of iterations. I see good and bad with this. The good might outweigh the bad, but I don't play the armies that are hit negatively by it.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...
I can't say if they're unforeseen or not. The old rule went through a lot of iterations. I see good and bad with this. The good might outweigh the bad, but I don't play the armies that are hit negatively by it.
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...
I can't say if they're unforeseen or not. The old rule went through a lot of iterations. I see good and bad with this. The good might outweigh the bad, but I don't play the armies that are hit negatively by it.
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
I'd seriously like the answer to this aswell.
And no don't bring hamberders up daed!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: So another round of stuff that should have been picked during playtesting - if it was ever done, they were competant or were not just ignored.
Considering the statements and visual reaction of playtesters torwards the CA pts which they had no influence over, and how disapointed they were?
very very likely the later.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...
Previously Tyranid players were a little confused why Old One Eye (character Carnifex) got a tailor made version of Look out Sir in the initial set of 9th edition faqs. Now seeing this I don't think these changes are unforeseen.
Jidmah wrote: I've changed my mind. If every FAQ results in an ork nerf, I want to go back to 6th edition when GW simply didn't talk to us and never FAQed anything.
I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.
Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.
tneva82 wrote: I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.
Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.
There's just 2 issues, organisation and gw itself.
the first, how do you organise people, it would need to be a massive effort, how many people do work on it, how many playtest, etc.
the second one, GW will step in, regardless, clamping down as what they percieve as one of their main moneymakers with a bigger margine then their models, considering they print in china.
Not to mention Copyright, etc.
tneva82 wrote: I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.
Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.
Did someone tell you that you can't? Amongst your friends and acquaintances you can play with any weird and wacky rules you like.
tneva82 wrote: I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.
Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.
Did someone tell you that you can't? Amongst your friends and acquaintances you can play with any weird and wacky rules you like.
Among friends and acquiaintances I can yes. I'm talking about expanding it LARGER base. Like pretty much every major tournament scale larger.
the second one, GW will step in, regardless, clamping down as what they percieve as one of their main moneymakers with a bigger margine then their models, considering they print in china.
Not to mention Copyright, etc.
Done right players can just raise middle finger. You can't copyright mechanism etc. Just avoid IP and you are safe. It's been done in past. Not much GW can do to stop you.
Without the endorsement, and with the threat of the cimmunity splitting up as it did in 7th?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Done right players can just raise middle finger. You can't copyright mechanism etc. Just avoid IP and you are safe. It's been done in past. Not much GW can do to stop you.
Oh i don't doubt that, i personally have long stopped to really suport GW rules in anyways.
The recent developments just accelerated that to the point were gw can go take a hike off a cliff.
That however doesn't change that the tournament scene would completely splinter most likely, and those splinters would be different from regular hobbiests.
tneva82 wrote: I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.
Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.
Did someone tell you that you can't? Amongst your friends and acquaintances you can play with any weird and wacky rules you like.
Among friends and acquiaintances I can yes. I'm talking about expanding it LARGER base. Like pretty much every major tournament scale larger.
the second one, GW will step in, regardless, clamping down as what they percieve as one of their main moneymakers with a bigger margine then their models, considering they print in china.
Not to mention Copyright, etc.
Done right players can just raise middle finger. You can't copyright mechanism etc. Just avoid IP and you are safe. It's been done in past. Not much GW can do to stop you.
Organization is the real issue.
Expanding how though? Admitedly ITC sort of did it, and I found their resultant game horrible. If you ask 100 players on how a given rule should be implemented from scratch, you will get about 103 answers. Have a look at the pointless excercise that is the Proposed Rule forum.
Actually the proposed rules forum is a nice place to look for inspiration for when you are so fed up that you decide to write your own campaign, or rebalance stuff. And that it does actually quite well.
For a Vehicle or Monster to protect a character jt has to be ten or more wounds now. No more Daemon Princes or Character Dreadnoughts guarding each other.
Also, strats that refund CP are no longer subject to the one-per-round restriction, although I suspect they'll have to FAQ the FAQ because now as written if you have a unit ability/relic/whatever that refunds CP you can get your 1 from that and then use your CP regen strat on top of it.
Well...yeah, that was the intention. It was pretty stupid that if I had a refund ability and used it, my opponent could use "Agents of Vect" on me and cause me to lose all the CP I spent on the stratagem (because AoV is written as "refunding" your opponent's CP)
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually the proposed rules forum is a nice place to look for inspiration for when you are so fed up that you decide to write your own campaign, or rebalance stuff. And that it does actually quite well.
I'm sure it is. The point I am failing to make is you can see how much of a variation of opinion there is among the player base as to what the solution to any given problem is (or even if something is a problem). Then there is the issue that GW's rules (flawed as they are) allow you to play with strangers and have an common understanding of how the game works. What are the chances that some stranger will agree with you on which house rule variation of the game is the right one to use.
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually the proposed rules forum is a nice place to look for inspiration for when you are so fed up that you decide to write your own campaign, or rebalance stuff. And that it does actually quite well.
I'm sure it is. The point I am failing to make is you can see how much of a variation of opinion there is among the player base as to what the solution to any given problem is (or even if something is a problem). Then there is the issue that GW's rules (flawed as they are) allow you to play with strangers and have an common understanding of how the game works. What are the chances that some stranger will agree with you on which house rule variation of the game is the right one to use.
Maybe give onepagerules a try, I've been looking to play that system myself for a while now.
On topic: get fethed pointy ears! (jk) How unplayable are harlequins now?
what I experieced, Harlequines are doing pretty good.
A highly mobile army, with invuls all around, that can use the new scenery to it's benefit - although I'm speaking from the view of a single riptide (sometimes not even that) tau player, so I might be a bit biased...
tneva82 wrote: I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.
Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.
Did someone tell you that you can't? Amongst your friends and acquaintances you can play with any weird and wacky rules you like.
Among friends and acquiaintances I can yes. I'm talking about expanding it LARGER base. Like pretty much every major tournament scale larger.
All this does is split the community further. Just look at the constant bickering between EEFLer, 6th Eders, KoW, and 9th Age groups to see how that works in reality.
Nibbler wrote: what I experieced, Harlequines are doing pretty good.
They were up until this FAQ. I'm afraid they just went from top tables to trash tier. Protecting characters with transports was literally their whole point.
Nibbler wrote: what I experieced, Harlequines are doing pretty good.
They were up until this FAQ. I'm afraid they just went from top tables to trash tier. Protecting characters with transports was literally their whole point.
The whole point of...harlequins?
But their transports are open topped. Their characters generally dont get out and try to hide behind the vehicle, they tend to get out when the vehicle is destroyed.
Yes the whole point of harlequins. In the traditional soaring spite list a shadowseer stays out in order to 1. provide a -1 to wound aura to your transports and 2. twilight pathways a unit forward. Solitaire naturally stays out because he doesn't need a transport. Death Jesters used to hang out on objectives. Now they 100% cannot do that even with a transport nearby.
Really the only character this doesn't effect is the troupe master.
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
There were a few lists out there that were quite lame. We had a guy springing for an all landspeeder and talonmaster army. Now if dreads go to 10 wounds then moot point for dread spam.
You can't keep harlequin characters in the transports. Every single one is made useless by staying in a transport. Staying in a transport = no strats, no auras, no psychic powers, and no close combat. I guess you could keep a death jester in a transport if they weren't the faction that uses the double shoot strat, but aside from that, there is no point to running harlequin characters if they have to stay in transports.
This was a stupid attempt to fix the Daemon Prince Super Friend thing by people who lazily fixed something without thinking through what else it would break. When all they had to do to fix it was specify that CHARACTER MONSTERS and VEHICLES don't block.
ThePorcupine wrote: Yes the whole point of harlequins. In the traditional soaring spite list a shadowseer stays out in order to 1. provide a -1 to wound aura to your transports and 2. twilight pathways a unit forward. Solitaire naturally stays out because he doesn't need a transport. Death Jesters used to hang out on objectives. Now they 100% cannot do that even with a transport nearby.
Really the only character this doesn't effect is the troupe master.
I thought the shadowseer's aura was infantry only?
I guess I can see the point about the death jester, but I almost always tuck my Solitaire somewhere totally out of LOS anyway. The corner of a ruin, behind a crate, he's a teeny tiny model and it's pretty easy to put him somewhere the enemy would hugely open themselves up trying to get to see him.
I don't think I've ever struggled to get a solitaire in to combat. When he dies, he dies after he's shredded his first target and the enemy goes "oh gak, that guy needs to go!"
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
There were a few lists out there that were quite lame. We had a guy springing for an all landspeeder and talonmaster army. Now if dreads go to 10 wounds then moot point for dread spam.
Yeah,I could see that being annoying. Agreed that an across the board increase in wounds for units could render this moot. It would, however, also greatly affect what vehicles could benefit from Obscuring terrain. I'll come right out and say: if things like Repulsor Executioners go to 18 wounds and no longer benefit from Obscuring terrain I'll stop complaining about the unequal interactions that rule creates for super heavys with smaller vehicles. It's the "almost a super heavy" vehicles getting the benefits of it that drives me crazy.
Nibbler wrote: what I experieced, Harlequines are doing pretty good.
They were up until this FAQ. I'm afraid they just went from top tables to trash tier. Protecting characters with transports was literally their whole point.
The whole point of...harlequins?
But their transports are open topped. Their characters generally dont get out and try to hide behind the vehicle, they tend to get out when the vehicle is destroyed.
In my experience "when the vehicle is destroyed" part happens in turn 1 for the vast majority of them
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
There were a few lists out there that were quite lame. We had a guy springing for an all landspeeder and talonmaster army. Now if dreads go to 10 wounds then moot point for dread spam.
Yeah,I could see that being annoying. Agreed that an across the board increase in wounds for units could render this moot. It would, however, also greatly affect what vehicles could benefit from Obscuring terrain. I'll come right out and say: if things like Repulsor Executioners go to 18 wounds and no longer benefit from Obscuring terrain I'll stop complaining about the unequal interactions that rule creates for super heavys with smaller vehicles. It's the "almost a super heavy" vehicles getting the benefits of it that drives me crazy.
Actually if a dreadnaught deamon prince goes to 11-14 wounds it doesnt as he is now just flat removed from lookout sir and is always targetable which in many ways would make more sence than the current rules which seem to draw odd cut off lines.
Also agreed many units need more wounds, heck I have heard one pod cast saying that every 2nd piece of terrain should be obscuring to reduce the lethality, while ignoring that it doesnt fix the core issues or help a number of armies and units.
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
There were a few lists out there that were quite lame. We had a guy springing for an all landspeeder and talonmaster army. Now if dreads go to 10 wounds then moot point for dread spam.
Yeah,I could see that being annoying. Agreed that an across the board increase in wounds for units could render this moot. It would, however, also greatly affect what vehicles could benefit from Obscuring terrain. I'll come right out and say: if things like Repulsor Executioners go to 18 wounds and no longer benefit from Obscuring terrain I'll stop complaining about the unequal interactions that rule creates for super heavys with smaller vehicles. It's the "almost a super heavy" vehicles getting the benefits of it that drives me crazy.
Actually if a dreadnaught deamon prince goes to 11-14 wounds it doesnt as he is now just flat removed from lookout sir and is always targetable which in many ways would make more sence than the current rules which seem to draw odd cut off lines.
Also agreed many units need more wounds, heck I have heard one pod cast saying that every 2nd piece of terrain should be obscuring to reduce the lethality, while ignoring that it doesnt fix the core issues or help a number of armies and units.
I hadn't considered that. But that could be changed by giving dreadnought/monster characters rules like the one Old One Eye has. Effectively they couldn't be protected by infantry but could be by other large vehicles/monsters of a specific type, so they'd want to run in packs of their own kind.
The new white dwarf harlequin rules give them a few amazing stratagems, one of which lets you apply the shadowseer wound aura to all units, not just infantry.
Also gives the shadowseer another great aura that reduces the range of things shooting at your units (infantry and vehicles).
So yes, you DEFINITELY want your shadowseer to be outside.
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
There were a few lists out there that were quite lame. We had a guy springing for an all landspeeder and talonmaster army. Now if dreads go to 10 wounds then moot point for dread spam.
Yeah,I could see that being annoying. Agreed that an across the board increase in wounds for units could render this moot. It would, however, also greatly affect what vehicles could benefit from Obscuring terrain. I'll come right out and say: if things like Repulsor Executioners go to 18 wounds and no longer benefit from Obscuring terrain I'll stop complaining about the unequal interactions that rule creates for super heavys with smaller vehicles. It's the "almost a super heavy" vehicles getting the benefits of it that drives me crazy.
Watch none of this happen and we're all just making random connections and we'll be left holding the bag at the end of the day.
I learned a long time ago that when GW does something that doesn't seem to make sense...9/10 it just doesn't make sense. There is very rarely some cunning and subtle plan people missed. GW drops the ball far more often than it makes rules people don't appreciate the genius of until later.
I learned a long time ago that when GW does something that doesn't seem to make sense...9/10 it just doesn't make sense. There is very rarely some cunning and subtle plan people missed. GW drops the ball far more often than it makes rules people don't appreciate the genius of until later.
I've been saying this since March. If I could exalt this post a million times I would. Ditto this one:
Watch none of this happen and we're all just making random connections and we'll be left holding the bag at the end of the day.
Everyone is so quick anymore to ascribe some ulterior motive or conspiracy to so much of this stuff and 9 times out of 10, when it comes to GW, they did something odd that doesn't make sense for no other reason than because they did something odd that doesn't make sense. I often wonder if, when you cross through the front door of their offices, you come out in "Wonderland" on the other side - the Mad Hatter is handing out desk assignments and that crazy rabbit is in charge of FAQ updates and Jervis is just chilling on a mushroom smoking a hooka .....
I learned a long time ago that when GW does something that doesn't seem to make sense...9/10 it just doesn't make sense. There is very rarely some cunning and subtle plan people missed. GW drops the ball far more often than it makes rules people don't appreciate the genius of until later.
I've been saying this since March. If I could exalt this post a million times I would. Ditto this one:
Watch none of this happen and we're all just making random connections and we'll be left holding the bag at the end of the day.
Everyone is so quick anymore to ascribe some ulterior motive or conspiracy to so much of this stuff and 9 times out of 10, when it comes to GW, they did something odd that doesn't make sense for no other reason than because they did something odd that doesn't make sense. I often wonder if, when you cross through the front door of their offices, you come out in "Wonderland" on the other side - the Mad Hatter is handing out desk assignments and that crazy rabbit is in charge of FAQ updates and Jervis is just chilling on a mushroom smoking a hooka .....
Yes, but then at the same time we're seeing weapon changes for things untouched for eons on top of wound increases for models not thought eligible. Something is going on. What it is precisely....*shrug*
Quality control of rules has always been GW's Achilles heel, something they have been chronically, consistently unable to manage. I don't know why, because their quality control on the miniatures/manufacturing side is really very good (aside from Failcast). But for whatever reason, they simply cannot for the life of them seem to create consistent quality rules.
Anybody who says GW never creates good rules is totally wrong - GW can create awesome rules, and it can even create awesome, balanced rules. The trouble is that it just doesn't do so nearly often enough. And the lack of attention that goes to proofreading and thinking through the weird interactions those rules create is especially glaring.
Yes, but then at the same time we're seeing weapon changes for things untouched for eons on top of wound increases for models not thought eligible. Something is going on. What it is precisely....*shrug*
Maybe? Thing is, there's always a "but ...". From reading your posts, I get the sense that you've been around GW for a while - We've both been around long enough to see them doing some weird "bleep", and to have everyone try to figure out where it's heading (that's part of the fun after all), then have the results released only for the community to blink at it and go "but ... that doesn't make sense .... OK! HERE'S WHERE THEY'RE REALLY GOING WITH THIS!" and start the cycle all over again.
Meanwhile non of it ever comes to fruition and the initial thing that made no sense, continues to go unchanged and not make sense. 9th is off to such a poor start, that all bets are off, but if I were going to bet on it, my bet would be - none of this will pan out in a way that makes any sense to us and the explanation will be "because reasons" ...
EDIT:
- The explanation will more likely be: "Because reasons .... BUY THIS NEW PRIMARIS BATTLE FORTRESS!!!!!"
So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.
There were a few lists out there that were quite lame. We had a guy springing for an all landspeeder and talonmaster army. Now if dreads go to 10 wounds then moot point for dread spam.
Yeah,I could see that being annoying. Agreed that an across the board increase in wounds for units could render this moot. It would, however, also greatly affect what vehicles could benefit from Obscuring terrain. I'll come right out and say: if things like Repulsor Executioners go to 18 wounds and no longer benefit from Obscuring terrain I'll stop complaining about the unequal interactions that rule creates for super heavys with smaller vehicles. It's the "almost a super heavy" vehicles getting the benefits of it that drives me crazy.
Watch none of this happen and we're all just making random connections and we'll be left holding the bag at the end of the day.
Yeah, the AP on terminator powerfists may not be the only typo on that datasheet......
yukishiro1 wrote: ...Anybody who says GW never creates good rules is totally wrong - GW can create awesome rules, and it can even create awesome, balanced rules. The trouble is that it just doesn't do so nearly often enough. And the lack of attention that goes to proofreading and thinking through the weird interactions those rules create is especially glaring.
GW can create interesting rules in a vacuum, but they're terrible at considering them in context. Almost everything they build is characterful, creative, and interesting, but they appear to have a number of different rules authors who don't talk to each other, armies only get attention and real updates when there's someone on the design team who really likes the army, there's no consistent vision for the game, they don't pay attention to their playtesters, and their proofreading is horrible. The game we play is made up of the glitches and unintended consequences of the rules GW wrote; all the creative energy they pour into their rules almost doesn't matter because the game is so bad at communicating their intent to the players.
Clarifies how Obscuring works for determining line of sight to big stuff.
TS and GK get this note: "PSYCHIC FOCUS Many veteran Thousand Sons players are unclear whether or not a matched play rule called Psychic Focus, which was published in the previous edition of the game and enabled their psykers to ignore the increasing Warp Charge cost of Smite, should continue to apply or not. For clarity, this rule is not a feature of the 9th edition of Warhammer 40,000, and Thousand Sons psykers manifest Smite just like any other psyker unit. Rest assured that the psychic might of this army can be reflected using the additional updates and rules found within Psychic Awakening: Ritual of the Damned, and we will be building upon this even more in the 9th edition version of Codex: Thousand Sons."
Jidmah wrote: I've changed my mind. If every FAQ results in an ork nerf, I want to go back to 6th edition when GW simply didn't talk to us and never FAQed anything.
Clarifies how Obscuring works for determining line of sight to big stuff.
TS and GK get this note: "PSYCHIC FOCUS Many veteran Thousand Sons players are unclear whether or not a matched play rule called Psychic Focus, which was published in the previous edition of the game and enabled their psykers to ignore the increasing Warp Charge cost of Smite, should continue to apply or not. For clarity, this rule is not a feature of the 9th edition of Warhammer 40,000, and Thousand Sons psykers manifest Smite just like any other psyker unit. Rest assured that the psychic might of this army can be reflected using the additional updates and rules found within Psychic Awakening: Ritual of the Damned, and we will be building upon this even more in the 9th edition version of Codex: Thousand Sons."
This is the stuff that gets me legitimately confused. If I was this poor at my job, I would no longer have a job. I'm sure a lot of people are in similar boats... Does GW not realize that this makes them look like idiots? Do they not care? Furthermore, if they are this successful WITH all the errors, omissions, the "whoopsie!" changes, etc., could they not make a lot more money if they just had competent management?
I'm sure all of this is harder than it seems, but everything I see tells me unpaid fans could do a better job than G-Dubs full-time employees. Maybe they should clean house and hire some people who give a
Clarifies how Obscuring works for determining line of sight to big stuff.
TS and GK get this note: "PSYCHIC FOCUS Many veteran Thousand Sons players are unclear whether or not a matched play rule called Psychic Focus, which was published in the previous edition of the game and enabled their psykers to ignore the increasing Warp Charge cost of Smite, should continue to apply or not. For clarity, this rule is not a feature of the 9th edition of Warhammer 40,000, and Thousand Sons psykers manifest Smite just like any other psyker unit. Rest assured that the psychic might of this army can be reflected using the additional updates and rules found within Psychic Awakening: Ritual of the Damned, and we will be building upon this even more in the 9th edition version of Codex: Thousand Sons."
This is the stuff that gets me legitimately confused. If I was this poor at my job, I would no longer have a job. I'm sure a lot of people are in similar boats... Does GW not realize that this makes them look like idiots? Do they not care? Furthermore, if they are this successful WITH all the errors, omissions, the "whoopsie!" changes, etc., could they not make a lot more money if they just had competent management?
I'm sure all of this is harder than it seems, but everything I see tells me unpaid fans could do a better job than G-Dubs full-time employees. Maybe they should clean house and hire some people who give a
They give a gak. We just get the benefit of hindsight and the lack of being overworked, underpaid, lack of tools, support, etc.
They probably spun out more books in the last 3 years than they did in the prior 10 on top of now what looks to be a ridiculously ambitious re-balancing of the game well beyond simple point changes.
@Gadzilla - you should be happy on this piece :
. Specifically, even though the Obscuring
rules state that Aircraft and models with a Wounds characteristic
of 18+ can be seen through Obscuring terrain, they are still only
visible (and hence eligible) targets if the firing model can physically
see them (so if the terrain in question is solid and opaque, they
are still not eligible targets).
. Specifically, even though the Obscuring
rules state that Aircraft and models with a Wounds characteristic
of 18+ can be seen through Obscuring terrain, they are still only
visible (and hence eligible) targets if the firing model can physically
see them (so if the terrain in question is solid and opaque, they
are still not eligible targets).
Yeah, it's good they clarified that. I always understand that was RAI, but it saves arguments with those who don't. I guess I can live with the idea that a 300 ton tank is harder to hide than an 80 ton one. Of course if the current points don't change I doubt I'll be bringing my big toys out for anything less than Onslaught.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That part about obscuring terrain is better, for sure, but it still doesn't fix the underlying problems with 9th's terrain and LOS rules:
1. You can still target something even if you can see just the tip of a spike.
2. Vehicles gain zero benefits for cover.
Vehicles (and bikes) can't 'receive the benefits of cover' from area terrain or obstacles (so can't benefit from Light or Heavy cover).
They can benefit from the -1 to hit from dense cover, if the attacking model is drawing a line through the terrain and isn't actually in it (or are within 3" of a dense cover obstacle, and its the only dense cover they're drawing lines through)
H.B.M.C. wrote: That part about obscuring terrain is better, for sure, but it still doesn't fix the underlying problems with 9th's terrain and LOS rules:
1. You can still target something even if you can see just the tip of a spike.
2. Vehicles gain zero benefits for cover.
Agreed. #1 in particular irks me to no end, and to me is still a bigger problem than any of the ones they did address.
Voss wrote: Vehicles (and bikes) can't 'receive the benefits of cover' from area terrain or obstacles (so can't benefit from Light or Heavy cover).
They can benefit from the -1 to hit from dense cover, if the attacking model is drawing a line through the terrain and isn't actually in it (or are within 3" of a dense cover obstacle, and its the only dense cover they're drawing lines through)
Thank you for this information. One further question:
"They can benefit from the -1 to hit from dense cover if the attacking model is drawing a line through the terrain and isn't actually in it..."You mean that the firing unit isn't in the same cover right? Otherwise it reads that vehicles can get -1 To Hit via dense cover as long they are not in the dense cover, which wouldn't make any sense.
Vehicles would still be hidden from sight by an obscuring piece of terrain or protected by dense terrain if you have to draw the line through any piece of terrain with those traits, ignoring the ones the attacking model is touching.
But seriously, I got a feeling Harlequins and Deathwatch could be among the first codices for 9th edition as they went straight to 
Castellan. Why does 
Why are loyalist Land Raider Achilles 17PL but the Hellforged Achilles is 20PL? Excellent work just like the ca points "rebalance". 
