40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**yukishiro1**

dhallnet wrote:

It's made to be efficient against 11+ men units. Yes. Quite literally. This is what they said " weapons designed to engage and destroy large groups of enemies will benefit from a more reliable number of attacks to ensure they make their presence felt". So obviously their definition of "large group of enemies" is "units of 11+ models".
As we already discussed they can't make a 2D6 weapon always make 12 shots, so you have to deal with the fact that now when something like a shadow weaver shoots "a large group" of grots, it won't just kill one model because you don't want to spend a CP to reroll your number of shots when you're using the weapon like you should. It's like you're mad at them because these weapons will achieve their intent without being overbearing on the rest of the game.
And SURE conga lines aren't really a large group of enemies but that's an issue with conga lines in the first place. And SURE 4*5 men isn't treated as 1*20 men, it's not perfect but also 4*5 men might be easier to tackle than 1*20 (for various reasons like buffs, charge rolls and whatnot like CP like previously mentioned but seems it wasn't worth noticing). Would it be fine if instead of "large groups of enemies" they would have written "large units" ? Do we need to argue every word ? Should we discuss the other weapons in the game that are more effective against certain targets and less against others ?

If you feel like having weapons which main purpose is to target large units (the game defining large units as 11+ models) is bad for the game, I can't argue with that, it's your opinion. As far as i'm concerned, I would like to know more and don't feel like it's a huge issue right now.

I don't disagree with any of that in the abstract, aside from the idea that there is really anything to be gained from having weapons specifically designed to target units of 11+ models. And even that doesn't particularly bother me; I don't see the reason for it, but as long as the points are adjusted, if they really WANT to do that, go for it I guess?

I think I would like the rule more if they hadn't tried to call it blast and tried to rationalize it based on the old blast mechanics, when in fact it does pretty much the exact opposite of what the old blast mechanics do in terms of incentives.

And I'd also like it more if I thought it actually did that, i.e. it actually was going to make a certain category of guns that is specifically designed to target big units. Instead, it seems like it will mostly result in two things: anti-tank weapons being better against 11+ model units as well, removing their prior weakness and therefore making the game less specialized, not more, and further empowering indirect fire, which I really don't think needs it.

FWIW I have three night spinners and will happily enough cheese the hell out of them if they become even more ridiculously overpowered than they were before. But I just don't think that's really what the game was desperately calling out for. Just like I really don't think the problem with 8th was that blobs of infantry were too difficult to shoot off the table.

**Custodes**

Sick of hearing about 40 ok I'm AOS all the way and I want to know when the Lumineth are coming.

**jeff white**

torblind wrote:
jeff white wrote:
torblind wrote:
jeff white wrote:
torblind wrote:

and I said wtf, dont make this about me.

You are suggesting that this rule doesn’t miss the point of blast weapons, but that it is not good at representing their dynamics at the same time, no?

I don't understand. Did you misuote me?

I got tired of quoting.
So many fallacies and bad rules, why bother, right?
To this I asked why you champion such a sad state of affairs in the first place.

Sad?

And I said my person is OFF TOPIC.

I am not asking about your person. I am asking for your reasons... but no stress. Clearly, if you had some, you would volunteer them rather than take offense.

**torblind**

yukishiro1 wrote:
dhallnet wrote:

It's made to be efficient against 11+ men units. Yes. Quite literally. This is what they said " weapons designed to engage and destroy large groups of enemies will benefit from a more reliable number of attacks to ensure they make their presence felt". So obviously their definition of "large group of enemies" is "units of 11+ models".
As we already discussed they can't make a 2D6 weapon always make 12 shots, so you have to deal with the fact that now when something like a shadow weaver shoots "a large group" of grots, it won't just kill one model because you don't want to spend a CP to reroll your number of shots when you're using the weapon like you should. It's like you're mad at them because these weapons will achieve their intent without being overbearing on the rest of the game.
And SURE conga lines aren't really a large group of enemies but that's an issue with conga lines in the first place. And SURE 4*5 men isn't treated as 1*20 men, it's not perfect but also 4*5 men might be easier to tackle than 1*20 (for various reasons like buffs, charge rolls and whatnot like CP like previously mentioned but seems it wasn't worth noticing). Would it be fine if instead of "large groups of enemies" they would have written "large units" ? Do we need to argue every word ? Should we discuss the other weapons in the game that are more effective against certain targets and less against others ?

If you feel like having weapons which main purpose is to target large units (the game defining large units as 11+ models) is bad for the game, I can't argue with that, it's your opinion. As far as i'm concerned, I would like to know more and don't feel like it's a huge issue right now.

I don't disagree with any of that in the abstract, aside from the idea that there is really anything to be gained from having weapons specifically designed to target units of 11+ models. And even that doesn't particularly bother me; I don't see the reason for it, but as long as the points are adjusted, if they really WANT to do that, go for it I guess?

I think I would like the rule more if they hadn't tried to call it blast and tried to rationalize it based on the old blast mechanics, when in fact it does pretty much the exact opposite of what the old blast mechanics do in terms of incentives.

And I'd also like it more if I thought it actually did that, i.e. it actually was going to make a certain category of guns that is specifically designed to target big units. Instead, it seems like it will mostly result in two things: anti-tank weapons being better against 11+ model units as well, removing their prior weakness and therefore making the game less specialized, not more, and further empowering indirect fire, which I really don't think needs it.

FWIW I have three night spinners and will happily enough cheese the hell out of them if they become even more ridiculously overpowered than they were before. But I just don't think that's really what the game was desperately calling out for. Just like I really don't think the problem with 8th was that blobs of infantry were too difficult to shoot off the table.

So you're preconceived is all

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jeff white wrote:
torblind wrote:
jeff white wrote:
torblind wrote:
jeff white wrote:
torblind wrote:

and I said wtf, dont make this about me.

You are suggesting that this rule doesn’t miss the point of blast weapons, but that it is not good at representing their dynamics at the same time, no?

I don't understand. Did you misuote me?

I got tired of quoting.
So many fallacies and bad rules, why bother, right?
To this I asked why you champion such a sad state of affairs in the first place.

Sad?

And I said my person is OFF TOPIC.

I am not asking about your person. I am asking for your reasons... but no stress. Clearly, if you had some, you would volunteer them rather than take offense.

still off topic

offense is not imporant. derailing is.

**yukishiro1**

torblind wrote:

So you're preconceived is all

I'm not sure what this means. Did you forget to finish the sentence?

**dhallnet**

jeff white wrote:
dhallnet wrote:

If you feel like having weapons which main purpose is to target large units (the game defining large units as 11+ models) is bad for the game, I can't argue with that, it's your opinion. As far as i'm concerned, I would like to know more and don't feel like it's a huge issue right now.

Because it is arbitrary and doesn’t capture the dynamics that blasts should represent... it could. Easily. This is the real trouble... disappointment that the experience must be leveled down so people who lack civility can play 40k without having to learn how to be civil, which had been a great social benefit of tabletop war games imho...

"maybe it isn't it's intent and you which it was" was the point of the post you butchered.

**jeff white**

Derailing? Asking why seems opposite to derailing...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:
jeff white wrote:
dhallnet wrote:

If you feel like having weapons which main purpose is to target large units (the game defining large units as 11+ models) is bad for the game, I can't argue with that, it's your opinion. As far as i'm concerned, I would like to know more and don't feel like it's a huge issue right now.

Because it is arbitrary and doesn’t capture the dynamics that blasts should represent... it could. Easily. This is the real trouble... disappointment that the experience must be leveled down so people who lack civility can play 40k without having to learn how to be civil, which had been a great social benefit of tabletop war games imho...

"maybe it isn't it's intent and you which it was" was the point of the post you butchered.

I don’t understand that grammar, sorry...

**torblind**

jeff white wrote:
Derailing? Asking why seems opposite to derailing...

Just stick to discussing the blast rule.

Also I never said the game was sad. I like the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
torblind wrote:

So you're preconceived is all

I'm not sure what this means. Did you forget to finish the sentence?

No you said their wording and approach let you to have expectations.

**Sasori**

Custodes wrote:
Sick of hearing about 40 ok I'm AOS all the way and I want to know when the Lumineth are coming.

Uh, then why are you in a thread that's only about 40k news?

**yukishiro1**

dhallnet wrote:

"maybe it isn't it's intent and you which it was" was the point of the post you butchered.

Yeah, but in that case, wouldn't it have been better for them to be honest about what the intent was and explain why they wanted to punish taking 11+ models, instead of dressing it up in the "blast" language that seems intended to disguise that what they're actually doing is if anything the opposite of what blast meant for the previous 6-7 editions before 8th?

I don't know about anyone else, but if they had said: "Ok guys, we know this is going to be controversial, but we think units of 11 or more models are too powerful and need to be toned down, so we're putting in a new mechanic to make variable shot weapons shoot harder at 11+ models than they do at 5 models, in order to encourage you not to take 11+ model units" I'd have reacted very differently than them saying "isn't it cool when a huge explosion in a crowded area blows up a ton of guys! now you can do that with the blast rule!" even though it isn't what the rule does at all.

**jeff white**

torblind wrote:
jeff white wrote:
Derailing? Asking why seems opposite to derailing...

Just stick to discussing the blast rule.

Also I never said the game was sad. I like the game.

I thought that you suggested that the rules were full of fallacies so why should we bother pointing them out and worse yet try to fix them... did I get that wrong? Because such a game is a sad one, in the sense of poorly kept, in poor condition... bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
But maybe you like this condition... I just wondered. Now I guess I have my answer...and now I understand your position on this blast rule.

**torblind**

jeff white wrote:
torblind wrote:
jeff white wrote:
Derailing? Asking why seems opposite to derailing...

Just stick to discussing the blast rule.

Also I never said the game was sad. I like the game.

I thought that you suggested that the rules were full of fallacies so why should we bother pointing them out and worse yet try to fix them... did I get that wrong? Because such a game is a sad one, in the sense of poorly kept, in poor condition... bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
But maybe you like this condition... I just wondered. Now I guess I have my answer...

You pulled me out of context (dont do that).

I was adressing that other yukishiro who was bothered with how this rule doesnt do more. And I am essentially arguing that it still does good even if it doesnt do all those things he also wanted done. And then I pointed out for meaningful reference that there are a bunch of things in the game up there, at the same level of lacking... physical representation.

But you know this. You're a grown person. You can read.

**dhallnet**

yukishiro1 wrote:
stuff

yeah, you thought the blast rule was going to cover blast effects and it's not really what it is about. I can understand

But it's quite a lot of internet ink for an issue with a single word.

Regarding how you feel about the necessity of it, I don't know, as far as I'm concerned I'm at least happy that weapons supposed to deal with "large groups" might be able to now. For the possible issues, I'll just wait&see for now.

And I was talking about the weapon batteries, not the spinner, but obviously it will become better at killing "large groups which are units comprised of 11+ models" too.

**yukishiro1**

Ugh, the triple nightspinner + 9 shadowweaver EC/MS list is IMO the single worst list in the game. So terrible to play, and to play against. I really hope it doesn't get buffed even more than it already has. It's on a level with broviathan for horrible lists that should never exist, IMO.

Indirect fire is a huge problem already in 8th and if 9th makes it even more powerful I do not think it will be good for anybody's fun.

**dhallnet**

yukishiro1 wrote:
dhallnet wrote:

"maybe it isn't it's intent and you which it was" was the point of the post you butchered.

Yeah, but in that case, wouldn't it have been better for them to be honest about what the intent was and explain why they wanted to punish taking 11+ models, instead of dressing it up in the "blast" language that seems intended to disguise that what they're actually doing is if anything the opposite of what blast meant for the previous 6-7 editions before 8th?

I don't know about anyone else, but if they had said: "Ok guys, we know this is going to be controversial, but we think units of 11 or more models are too powerful and need to be toned down, so we're putting in a new mechanic to make variable shot weapons shoot harder at 11+ models than they do at 5 models, in order to encourage you not to take 11+ model units" I'd have reacted very differently than them saying "isn't it cool when a huge explosion in a crowded area blows up a ton of guys! now you can do that with the blast rule!" even though it isn't what the rule does at all.

They actually did, they are literally doing it because these weapons were disappointing, to quote :
"We’ve all been there – a numberless horde of Tyranids is hurtling towards your army, but even as you line up your trusty ordnance weapon to blast a ruinous chunk from of their ranks, you roll a 1 for the number of shots it fires. Well, no more! The new rules for Blast weapons ensure you get the most bang for your buck when targeting larger concentrations of enemy troops…"
And that's it. It's stuff that wasn't working that they hope will now. Was it required ? Dunno, but these weapons sure were underwhelming.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ugh, the triple nightspinner + 9 shadowweaver EC/MS list is IMO the single worst list in the game. So terrible to play, and to play against. I really hope it doesn't get buffed even more than it already has. It's on a level with broviathan for horrible lists that should never exist, IMO.

Indirect fire is a huge problem already in 8th and if 9th makes it even more powerful I do not think it will be good for anybody's fun.

We're getting a tease about the new cover rules tomorrow.
Shadow weavers as they are only works because they are single models instead of a unit and that interaction with that trait though.

**Goobi2**

Big units like Hormagaunts and Ork Boyz needed the new blast rules. Even things like Cultists and Guardian Defenders (yes, Guardian Defenders) could use a better counter. These things are buff magnets and potentially huge bullet sponges. So, obviously, you are gonna need more bullets against them.

With board sizes getting smaller and LoS blocking terrain becoming more of a thing you will have fewer chances to do real work against these units. Especially since most of them can be pretty scary if they actually get into your lines.

The players that needlessly suffer the most from this are probably Tau and Harlequin players that max units at 12. (Though I don't know any people that actually do that anymore [or if it is even still possible])

**yukishiro1**

dhallnet wrote:

They actually did, they are literally doing it because these weapons were disappointing, to quote :
"We’ve all been there – a numberless horde of Tyranids is hurtling towards your army, but even as you line up your trusty ordnance weapon to blast a ruinous chunk from of their ranks, you roll a 1 for the number of shots it fires. Well, no more! The new rules for Blast weapons ensure you get the most bang for your buck when targeting larger concentrations of enemy troops…"

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is precisely what the rule doesn't actually do. It gives you more bang for your buck when shooting units of 11+ models, not when targeting larger concentrations. You can say this is just meaningless word-parsing, but I really don't think it is. It is the essence of the difference. Blast used to be about density, now it's about unit model count. It sounds similar at first, but the implications are completely different, and actually kind of the opposite.

**dhallnet**

yukishiro1 wrote:
dhallnet wrote:

They actually did, they are literally doing it because these weapons were disappointing, to quote :
"We’ve all been there – a numberless horde of Tyranids is hurtling towards your army, but even as you line up your trusty ordnance weapon to blast a ruinous chunk from of their ranks, you roll a 1 for the number of shots it fires. Well, no more! The new rules for Blast weapons ensure you get the most bang for your buck when targeting larger concentrations of enemy troops…"

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is precisely what the rule doesn't actually do. It gives you more bang for your buck when shooting units of 11+ models, not when targeting larger concentrations. You can say this is just meaningless word-parsing, but I really don't think it is. It is the essence of the difference. Blast used to be about density, now it's about unit model count. It sounds similar at first, but the implications are completely different, and actually kind of the opposite.

I won't quote again the next part where they define what "a large group of enemies" or rather a "larger concentration of enemy troops" is. So yeah, you are beating a dead horse

**ClockworkZion**

yukishiro1 wrote:
dhallnet wrote:

They actually did, they are literally doing it because these weapons were disappointing, to quote :
"We’ve all been there – a numberless horde of Tyranids is hurtling towards your army, but even as you line up your trusty ordnance weapon to blast a ruinous chunk from of their ranks, you roll a 1 for the number of shots it fires. Well, no more! The new rules for Blast weapons ensure you get the most bang for your buck when targeting larger concentrations of enemy troops…"

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is precisely what the rule doesn't actually do. It gives you more bang for your buck when shooting units of 11+ models, not when targeting larger concentrations. You can say this is just meaningless word-parsing, but I really don't think it is. It is the essence of the difference. Blast used to be about density, now it's about unit model count. It sounds similar at first, but the implications are completely different, and actually kind of the opposite.

And yet it may be exactly what they intended since it doesn't work like, say. Orbital Bombardment which can hit multiple units from a fixed point. Clearly they aren't trying to punish people for taking horde armies, they just want the weapons to work better against horde units.

**yukishiro1**

Goobi2 wrote:
Big units like Hormagaunts and Ork Boyz needed the new blast rules. Even things like Cultists and Guardian Defenders (yes, Guardian Defenders) could use a better counter. These things are buff magnets and potentially huge bullet sponges. So, obviously, you are gonna need more bullets against them.

Were hormagaunt or ork boyz hordes dominating the meta? Were guardian bombs? Cultist spam? I just find this argument really interesting, because it simply wasn't the case. The board size changes don't change this really btw, because all these units already to able to make T1 contact with almost any army on almost any deployment map. You can't get any faster than a T1 charge.

The counter for all these is still volume of fire weapons btw, not blast weapons. You get way more bang for your buck shooting all these targets with hurricane bolters than you do with blast weapons. So the rule doesn't even really improve someone's ability to counter these units.

The main impact of the rule seems to be: (1) more powerful indirect fire (does anyone think the game needs this?) and (2) anti-tank weapons that are still not very good for shooting 11+ unit models, but better than they used to be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
dhallnet wrote:

They actually did, they are literally doing it because these weapons were disappointing, to quote :
"We’ve all been there – a numberless horde of Tyranids is hurtling towards your army, but even as you line up your trusty ordnance weapon to blast a ruinous chunk from of their ranks, you roll a 1 for the number of shots it fires. Well, no more! The new rules for Blast weapons ensure you get the most bang for your buck when targeting larger concentrations of enemy troops…"

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is precisely what the rule doesn't actually do. It gives you more bang for your buck when shooting units of 11+ models, not when targeting larger concentrations. You can say this is just meaningless word-parsing, but I really don't think it is. It is the essence of the difference. Blast used to be about density, now it's about unit model count. It sounds similar at first, but the implications are completely different, and actually kind of the opposite.

I won't quote again the next part where they define what "a large group of enemies" or rather a "larger concentration of enemy troops" is. So yeah, you are beating a dead horse

A unit with 11+ models is not the same as a larger concentration of enemy troops. Words have meanings, and these do not mean the same thing. Old blast rewarded targeting larger concentrations of enemy troops; this new blast rule does not.

But this seems like a silly argument to have because we seem to both already agree this rule is totally different from what blast used to mean. It's not a good approximation at all of a blast weapon. Whether it is a good mechanic despite not being a good approximation of a blast weapon will depend on the rest of the rules.

**dhallnet**

If they want to call "blast" a weapon better suited to deal with huge units, I don't see why not. It's still related imho and evocative enough to remember what we are talking about. Unless you're extremely obtuse.
What matter is the rule.

But yeah, it isn't an oldschool blast, it's a 2020 blast, it has evolved and like all new stuff replacing older stuff, it's worse ofc !

(but so was rolling X dice tbh)
So that's it, maybe you're just old

**yukishiro1**

Make Blasts Great Again!

**Necros**

Maybe I missed it, but did they say when the new rules will be out? I read "a few weeks" in the faq thingy, but is there a date?

**yukishiro1**

Most people seem to be betting the week of July 8 to 12, but they haven't officially said yet.

**ClockworkZion**

Necros wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but did they say when the new rules will be out? I read "a few weeks" in the faq thingy, but is there a date?

Maybe when it goes up on pre-order we'll get the free core rules. Otherwise, July.

**Gadzilla666**

So do we know what tomorrow's topic will be? Cover or morale would be nice.

**Eldarain**

Terrain I think.

**ClockworkZion**

From WHC:

Join us again tomorrow, when we’ll be looking at the overhauled rules for terrain in the new edition.

**Gadzilla666**

ClockworkZion wrote:
From WHC:

Join us again tomorrow, when we’ll be looking at the overhauled rules for terrain in the new edition.

Good. I think this will be the game changer. Should make a lot of the other rules make sense.

**EnTyme**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Nobody's forced to post in this thread, or on this topic.
Wait... you dont have a Dakka mod in your house whipping you by the hour should you fail to engage 40k discussion?

Only on weekends. Also, don't kink shame me.