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.

 blood reaper wrote:
Yeah totally man this is definitely true.

Yeah I can't imagine a single reason why someone wouldn't be ok with 5 units (CSM, Bikers, Raptors, Terminators, Chosen) having vastly inconsistent weapon options despite the miniatures sharing almost all the same actual weapons.

None at all...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Yeah totally man this is definitely true.

Yeah I can't imagine a single reason why someone wouldn't be ok with 5 units (CSM, Bikers, Raptors, Terminators, Chosen) having vastly inconsistent weapon options despite the miniatures sharing almost all the same actual weapons.

None at all...

No I just hate the concept of change. It fills me with fury. All change is good actually, but the heckin' wargamers don't like it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Yeah totally man this is definitely true.

Yeah I can't imagine a single reason why someone wouldn't be ok with 5 units (CSM, Bikers, Raptors, Terminators, Chosen) having vastly inconsistent weapon options despite the miniatures sharing almost all the same actual weapons.

None at all...

It would be one thing if the differences between units amounted to something useful, like this one was anti-tank, this one was anti-character, this one was anti-horde.

But they're all anti-infantry. This is difference for difference sake. There's no reason for it.

As Auspex put it in his video, the changes to Terminators are there to simplify their melee weapon choices, both from a modelling and rules perspective.

And then...

... the Combi-Weapon restrictions completely negate the streamlined approach to melee weapons.

Chaosistency!!!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As Auspex put it in his video, the changes to Terminators are there to simplify their melee weapon choices, both from a modelling and rules perspective.

And then...

... the Combi-Weapon restrictions completely negate the streamlined approach to melee weapons.

Chaosistency!!!

I'm so looking forward to your full review of this book.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)

Its definitely going in mine!

You must have hated changing that.

Voss wrote:

As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.

Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.

Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.

I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.

Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.

Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.

Interesting as well that the book still appears to have chainswords and chainaxes as separate weapons - and yet the berzerker rules released in WD have just equipped them with 'berzerker chain weapons'...

Crispy78 wrote:
Interesting as well that the book still appears to have chainswords and chainaxes as separate weapons - and yet the berzerker rules released in WD have just equipped them with 'berzerker chain weapons'...

Chaosistency!!!

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:

As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.

Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.

Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.

I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.

Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.

Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.

Ah. I did misunderstand- mind went off a tactical tangent, not a dice one. My bad.
That makes it so much worse... I'd hate to be on either side of that. 'Sorry, we've got to baby-step this so my rules even work' is a wretched gameplay experience.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:

As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.

Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.

Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.

I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.

Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.

Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.

Sure you can slow roll to gain advantage. Opponent can then decline fast rolling vs you ensuring super slow game. And ensures you can't fast roll when it saves. Fail lnv save on first attack? With no idea hoy many hits/wounds/failed saves no idea is it worth reroll,

Like with sisters if you get 3 past saves you could roll 2 and then decide miracle dice or not. But that gives you advantage and info over slow roll so if you do that opponent can simply say "slow rolls from now on".

Sword cuts both ways...

And if trait needs this gamey to be worth it lousy trait.

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:

As to your point about Necrons: as I said earlier, against factions like that we'll have to rely on the half strength condition. Throw some firepower into them to thin their numbers before charging them. If that isn't quite enough, slow roll your attacks until they drop below half strength and the trait kicks in.

Does a slow roll approach even work anymore?
9th always seems like a very 'kill as much as you can, as soon as you can' as long as you can still grab objectives.

Keeps down what the enemy can do to you. Waiting for the trait to trigger doesn't seem effective.

I think that you misunderstood me. When I said "slow roll", I meant the opposite of fast/batch rolling. Basically, if you have a squad in melee with something that isn't below half strength, but you think you can get it under half strength without all of the unit's attacks, then you go one attack at a time, or one model at a time (which is how I'd do it), until you get the target unit below half strength, and the rest of your attacks get +1 to wound. Roll hit, then wound, then save. One attack, or model, at a time. Until the trait kicks in.

Of course, since most high leadership factions are also "low model count", and MSU is so prevalent, you'll usually only be getting the +1 to wound on the last 1-2 models. 3 man Gravis/Custodes/Bladeguard squad? Congratulations, you're Legion trait works on the last guy.

Honestly, we'd probably have been better off if the Call the Black Hunt stratagem was our Legion trait. At least we'd get to use it more.

Ah. I did misunderstand- mind went off a tactical tangent, not a dice one. My bad.
That makes it so much worse... I'd hate to be on either side of that. 'Sorry, we've got to baby-step this so my rules even work' is a wretched gameplay experience.

Yup, agreed. It doesn't sound very fun at all. And the few extra wounds that you get probably won't make much of a difference. Sounds like Night Lords get another edition of pretending that we don't even have a Legion trait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
And if trait needs this gamey to be worth it lousy trait.

Yup. Go explain all of that to gw. Please.

But don't Night Lords love torture? With this rule you can slowly torture your opponent one attack at a time. Super fluffy. Great job GW!

And get counter tortured. And good luck getting game ended in reasonable timeframe without fast rolling.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
But don't Night Lords love torture? With this rule you can slowly torture your opponent one attack at a time. Super fluffy. Great job GW!

Read in Southpark Carman voice: that is genius sir.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just seems odd that they'd go out of their way to add a Cultist HQ and then not let you take Cultist armies.

I mean, Sisters of Silence got a provision in the Custodes book to run SoS-themed armies. Why couldn't Chaos get the same? Why couldn't they get a "Travelling Players" box ala Eldar, but to give us our Daemons back?

But we got some crazy mutants, so I guess it's ok...

Hopefully we'll see a Cultist army in a future Army of Renown.

Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos. Cultists and support was all 8th and early 9th, let’s hope they go all in an actual cultist army, and have people actually use chaos space marines in a chaos space marines army. They could have pushed cultists to elites like they did marine scouts, but chaos would need way more troop options than what they have now, unlike marines with their grocery superstore options.

 whembly wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just seems odd that they'd go out of their way to add a Cultist HQ and then not let you take Cultist armies.

I mean, Sisters of Silence got a provision in the Custodes book to run SoS-themed armies. Why couldn't Chaos get the same? Why couldn't they get a "Travelling Players" box ala Eldar, but to give us our Daemons back?

But we got some crazy mutants, so I guess it's ok...

Hopefully we'll see a Cultist army in a future Army of Renown.

Not sure if sarcasm; or unhealthy desire to consoom.

 bullyboy wrote:
Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos. Cultists and support was all 8th and early 9th, let’s hope they go all in an actual cultist army, and have people actually use chaos space marines in a chaos space marines army. They could have pushed cultists to elites like they did marine scouts, but chaos would need way more troop options than what they have now, unlike marines with their grocery superstore options.

Or they could just make Cultists not have ObSec and then they don't function as normal Troops do but rather as a meatshield for your better units, which is what Cultists are supposed to be. They can be used as a distraction or as blocking units that take up time to kill, time that the rest of the army can use to do damage or secure objectives. GW also hasn't incentivised using Legionaries, Terminators or Chosen because they borked the equipment lists to once again haphazardly apply "What's in the box" rules.

Voss wrote:
You must have hated changing that.

Not as much as they hate comprehension, apparently.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)

What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)

What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.

I *will* praise GW when they get something right.

I've said it many times, the core 9th edition rules are fantastic. The stratagem and rules bloat is where they've botched it.
The Chaos Marine Codex has some good rules in it, some fluffy stuff, and many new ways to build your army. The traits for most legions are far superior to what we had previously (though that wasn't a hard bar to surpass).
They botched it with the inconsistency of weapons and profiles between one datasheet and the next.

When you have a game that doesn't have this issue across any other faction, it gets very, very frustrating. Yes we saw it to a degree in Genestealer Cult, but they weren't calling a power fist something different in every single profile. Space Marines are very consistent despite handling both firstborn and primaris models. Admech with all their esoteric weapons aren't lumped together. Sisters of Battle have combi-weapons and power weapons galore for all their Superiors of different kinds, and it's the same weapon selection across most of the superiors.

It's not the end of the world, but it's *irksome*. Like a child asking 'are we there yet'. Every time a Chaos Codex strips an option or makes a mess of the other options, it's another 'are we there yet'. I could tune it out and do my best to enjoy the trip, even build an army that has none of those troublesome units, but it sure would be nice if that child would just shut up for an edition.

Nevermind that even the most outspoken critics in this thread have still pointed out -changes- that are they liked and feel are good.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)

What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.

We've got some real geniuses in this thread to say the least - some of the observations have been stunning. If this was another site, they'd be getting a LOT of upvotes right about now.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)

What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.

We've got some real geniuses in this thread to say the least - some of the observations have been stunning. If this was another site, they'd be getting a LOT of upvotes right about now.

Heckin poggers telling the meanies they're wrong. I'd totally give you Reddit gold for that

This truly is a heckin' wholesome Pickle Keanu chungus r/woosh we did it Reddit gold moment

drbored wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)

What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.

I *will* praise GW when they get something right.

I've said it many times, the core 9th edition rules are fantastic. The stratagem and rules bloat is where they've botched it.
The Chaos Marine Codex has some good rules in it, some fluffy stuff, and many new ways to build your army. The traits for most legions are far superior to what we had previously (though that wasn't a hard bar to surpass).
They botched it with the inconsistency of weapons and profiles between one datasheet and the next.

When you have a game that doesn't have this issue across any other faction, it gets very, very frustrating. Yes we saw it to a degree in Genestealer Cult, but they weren't calling a power fist something different in every single profile. Space Marines are very consistent despite handling both firstborn and primaris models. Admech with all their esoteric weapons aren't lumped together. Sisters of Battle have combi-weapons and power weapons galore for all their Superiors of different kinds, and it's the same weapon selection across most of the superiors.

It's not the end of the world, but it's *irksome*. Like a child asking 'are we there yet'. Every time a Chaos Codex strips an option or makes a mess of the other options, it's another 'are we there yet'. I could tune it out and do my best to enjoy the trip, even build an army that has none of those troublesome units, but it sure would be nice if that child would just shut up for an edition.

Summed up my feelings as well. Like I can live with it and make it work, but it's getting in it's own way and keeping it from being a truly great book. It almost feels like there were two different teams responsible for the book, and the one doing the datasheets and they didn't talk at all and just turned in their work separately.

Thinking of this book's weird issues unless I missed something we have meltas and flamers for assault weapons but flamers get a flat +2 number of shots bonus, so the only assault weapon I'm aware of that benefits from our Wanton bonuses is the melta gun. Feels like more evidence of a disconnect in the team.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

drbored wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
( This should probably be in my signature)

What a brilliant observation, people really do hate when things are bad for them or when things change for the worse in their opinion. I don't know how I would live without that astounding piece of enlightement.

I *will* praise GW when they get something right.

I've said it many times, the core 9th edition rules are fantastic. The stratagem and rules bloat is where they've botched it.
The Chaos Marine Codex has some good rules in it, some fluffy stuff, and many new ways to build your army. The traits for most legions are far superior to what we had previously (though that wasn't a hard bar to surpass).
They botched it with the inconsistency of weapons and profiles between one datasheet and the next.

When you have a game that doesn't have this issue across any other faction, it gets very, very frustrating. Yes we saw it to a degree in Genestealer Cult, but they weren't calling a power fist something different in every single profile. Space Marines are very consistent despite handling both firstborn and primaris models. Admech with all their esoteric weapons aren't lumped together. Sisters of Battle have combi-weapons and power weapons galore for all their Superiors of different kinds, and it's the same weapon selection across most of the superiors.

It's not the end of the world, but it's *irksome*. Like a child asking 'are we there yet'. Every time a Chaos Codex strips an option or makes a mess of the other options, it's another 'are we there yet'. I could tune it out and do my best to enjoy the trip, even build an army that has none of those troublesome units, but it sure would be nice if that child would just shut up for an edition.

Summed up my feelings as well. Like I can live with it and make it work, but it's getting in it's own way and keeping it from being a truly great book. It almost feels like there were two different teams responsible for the book, and the one doing the datasheets and they didn't talk at all and just turned in their work separately.

Thinking of this book's weird issues unless I missed something we have meltas and flamers for assault weapons but flamers get a flat +2 number of shots bonus, so the only assault weapon I'm aware of that benefits from our Wanton bonuses is the melta gun. Feels like more evidence of a disconnect in the team.

Yeah melta would be the main winner if it could be taken in any quantities anywhere (no fallen, restrictions on new chosen and new termies - there are no dedicated special weapon squads anymore). Sonic weapons other than the siren, the Venomcrawlers guns, Horus' talon and weirdly Haarken's spear all benefit, Haarken might need a FAQ though (does the beam hit twice on a 6?). 4 turns of doctrines affecting assault weapons though, so if you can find them it's kind of better than the loyalist marines tactical doctrine only for assault weapons.

 bullyboy wrote:
Yes, I do think a chaos space marine army should like a chaos space marine army. It’s codex: chaos space marines right? Not just codex: chaos.

Codex: Adeptus Custodes lets you do a Sisters of Silence army. The Eldar Codex lets you do a Harlequin army. This "It's Codex: CSM guys!!!" excuse doesn't hold water.