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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Someone on Reddit did the match and Cut Them Down trumps an inverse Overwatch on anyone who isn't a character with a truckload of attacks since it skips needing to wound and then get past saves.

And you melee dedicated units like Dreadnoughts or Genestealers.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.

Ok, let's break this down.

Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.

I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.

The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.

They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.

Doohicky wrote:


I think it is for things like Celestine and her bodyguard. Means Celestine is still untargetable even with them as long as she isn't closest and within 3 of another unit

Celestine 1 unit, bodyguard another and you can bring either as solo

 Galas wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Man Basilisk and Manticora have become the best snipers of the game!


I understand what they wanted to fix with this rule but I believe they are going too hard on the other extreme, this will make characters extremely vulnerable.

How? I don't think they can ignore the targeting rule.

Tell me what character can survive 3 manticores or 3 basilisk firing at everything thats 3" of him and then him (And thats easy on the first turn. The moment you start moving you won't have that much units at 3" of all of your characters) . Or any kind of character that maybe you would use alone with LOS blocking terrain.

Oh, you don't mean directly attacking him. Well, you still have to get rid of the bodyguard, right? So if the bodyguard is tough enough to survive bombardment then so will the character.
I guess terminators or shield lychguard or something.

Artillery probably needs a bit of a nerf, imo. In earlier editions they had to deal with scatter. Now they don't really have a weakness. They should at least have hit penalties if firing indirectly.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Anyways, credit where credit is due; the Sisters preview article was good and the sort of thing I would like to see. It touched on some problems being addressed, as well as some new tactical options AND difficulties for players.

Wish they had touched mortificators more than "oh you lost your special rule". Do they get anything in return or nerf?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.

Ok, let's break this down.

Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.

I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.

The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.

They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.

Huh, well that's weird.
Do they have a rule where damage gets redirected from Celestine to them, at least? I think you can still use that.
If so, then they are still working as bodyguards.

As I said. I understand what they wanted to remove from the game but this is too hard in making characters vulnerable.

I mean. It is not that big of a deal. The meta will change, and we will adapt to it, and it will probably change in 6 months. But this is a bad change in general. I prefer hard to target characters even if sometimes silly situations happen than characters that need to be literally at 3" from half of his army to hope to survive.

 Latro_ wrote:
yea its actually a weirdly good sentence as it covers units of 1+ characters and weird units where they have body guards that are not characters.

This. They're just covering their bases. If characters could join units again, there'd be no need for an explicit rule on character targeting.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.

Ok, let's break this down.

Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.

I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.

The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.

They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.

could you not already do this in 8th? assuming gemini and celestine group were all the closest?

 Tyran wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Someone on Reddit did the match and Cut Them Down trumps an inverse Overwatch on anyone who isn't a character with a truckload of attacks since it skips needing to wound and then get past saves.

And you melee dedicated units like Dreadnoughts or Genestealers.

Fair point. I could see a rule that give certain units bonuses to Cut Them Down to compensate though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.

Ok, let's break this down.

Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.

I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.

The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.

They are not.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Huh, well that's weird.
Do they have a rule where damage gets redirected from Celestine to them, at least? I think you can still use that.
If so, then they are still working as bodyguards.

Yes they do. The trio are 2 units. Celestine 1, 1-2 gemini as other. All characters so all can be protected with this.

Funnily enough best use for gemini i have had is sacrifial lamb in maelstroms. 16/20(depending which you consider real price. Gw being gw unclear) for 2 vp when works isn't that bad

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.

Ok, let's break this down.

Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.

I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.

The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.

They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.

To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?

 bullyboy wrote:

To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?

Bodyguards units transfers wounds from the character to them, they don't need a fix, do they ?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Hmm, the math hammer must surely make sense to have MSU surrounding a character, but surely that actually makes a character easier to snipe than larger units?

Assuming split fire is still a thing, if a character is surrounded by 6x 5 man squads, you need to kill 3 models in each unit, so 18 in total (saying split fire as you will want to split fire at times to maybe whittle down the last model in one unit and dedicate the rest to another squad which would be necessary when killing MSU's in such a situation you would presume).

For if they are surrounded by 3x 10 man squads, you need to kill 24 models to snipe the character. Whilst the larger unit is a bigger problem for morale purposes, the character will survive without being shot that turn, whilst in the first scenario, the character can get sniped.

Unless my reading of the rules and/or maths is off there....

I suppose another tactic will be to have more heavy duty units by characters with high defence that can act as their body guard to absorb the firepower before being whittled down.

Quoting my own post again as it probably got lost in the discussion, any gurus amongst you can answer whether this interpretation is right or wrong (in theory at least anyway).

 bullyboy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.

Ok, let's break this down.

Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.

I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.

The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.

They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.

To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?

Or use the bodyguard rule to soak damage as before

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Quoting my own post again as it probably got lost in the discussion, any gurus amongst you can answer whether this interpretation is right or wrong (in theory at least anyway).

Your numbers are right.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.

Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.

Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.

You folk are ridiculous.


You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.

We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.

LOL imagine thinking that, because Overwatch was effectively removed, it makes this Stratagem ANY better. Spoiler alert: it's still a waste of CP.

Then again you said Fall Back was never an issue to begin with so you're not to be taken seriously.

So why are they advocating MSU's in the article to protect characters then?

The biggest thing in the article for me was the multi charge footnote.

I can't quite believe that they slipped this in as a footnote, rather than have it highlighted in its own section within an article.

Character change doesn't really bother me as it makes sense and will add a new dynamic. Certainly think that ignore LoS weapons and fast units will be king this edition.

changemod wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 xttz wrote:

Aash wrote:
So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.

I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful

Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.

Undercuts their concept entirely imo.

Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.

They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.

Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

changemod wrote:
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.

So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.

Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.

They already did. If I recall correctly, the issue was less the life support capabilities of the Redemptor, but rather too much heat produced by essentially overclocking the dread while fighting. How much fighting is too hard for super space marine tech?

 puma713 wrote:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think being able to use a single strategem for a 17% chance to cause a mortal wound per model is worth having my unit completely obliterated next turn. That is still the issue. Not only that, but now I have to pay a CP to do it. So, you can still leave combat, I MIGHT cause 1-2 wounds on you when you, then you focus fire my melee unit. What is the incentive for rushing in, chainswords drawn, again?

But it's not "your unit" alone that is attacking when you utilize this stratagem.

It is the MODELS. FROM. YOUR. ARMY. that are within Engagement Range of the enemy unit that was chosen to Fall Back with.

Understand:
THIS IS NOT A ONE UNIT STRATAGEM ON YOUR PART.
We know Blast weapons cannot be used while an enemy is within Engagement Range. We don't know 100% yet how Fall Back or how Morale works with 9E. We do know that terrain rules have changed.

You weren't "causing a mortal wound" to units that Fell Back before(or if you were--congrats, you're one of the few armies doing so!), so spending 1CP now to finish off a unit that currently just continually gets pulled back and you have to keep chipping away at it is not exactly a downside. And frankly, you never should be able to get 100% immunity from shooting attacks simply by walking up and hitting something.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

LOL imagine thinking that, because Overwatch was effectively removed, it makes this Stratagem ANY better. Spoiler alert: it's still a waste of CP.

Then again you said Fall Back was never an issue to begin with so you're not to be taken seriously.

LOL, imagine thinking this stratagem is trash while nonstop whining about Fall Back being such a big deal.

If it's SUCH A BIG ISSUE, then spoiler:
This stratagem should be a big deal to you. After all, it's a hard counter to Fall Back--which we know is a fairly big deal to Blast Weapon equipped units since they cannot utilize Blast Weapons on units within Engagement Range of them.

Hrmmmh, what kind of units usually come with Blast Weapons?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
So why are they advocating MSU's in the article to protect characters then?

Because I'm pretty sure they don't.
He says :

"I intend to overcome those by keeping a close eye on what I keep near them – there should be no shortage in my army of both Vehicles and decently sized Infantry units, and the two of those together should give me all the protection I need to keep my linchpins alive."

The part about using more msu is his conclusion regarding the whole article, it isn't linked to his thoughts regarding "look out, sir".

Kdash wrote:
The biggest thing in the article for me was the multi charge footnote.

I can't quite believe that they slipped this in as a footnote, rather than have it highlighted in its own section within an article. .

For me it is a more of a surprise that it was gone, I somehow missed that it was removed after 5th

dhallnet wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
So why are they advocating MSU's in the article to protect characters then?

Because I'm pretty sure they don't.
He says :

"I intend to overcome those by keeping a close eye on what I keep near them – there should be no shortage in my army of both Vehicles and decently sized Infantry units, and the two of those together should give me all the protection I need to keep my linchpins alive."

The part about using more msu is his conclusion regarding the whole article, it isn't linked to his thoughts regarding "look out, sir".

I took the MSU comment more a reference to the morale rules that haven’t been explained yet. I’m a little worried about that tbh.

Doohicky wrote:
No mention of shooting phase in that new rule..

Does that mean no more character sniping with psychic powers?
They now have to follow the same rules as shooting to pick out a character

"with a ranged weapon"

A psychic power isn't a ranged weapon.

 Sasori wrote:

 Therion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Called it! Overwatch is a strat!

I flat out posted it on tactics three weeks ago.

Looks like you said your source told you it was gone entirely.... https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/788961.page#10820032

Then you said "Maybe" it's a strat https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/788961.page#10820054

Doesn't sound like you "Knew" at all.

Looks like I was lucky again. Guessed the character targeting rules on the spot right, May 23

EDIT: Looks like GW leaked the charges also. Didn't I say that the charge needs to reach every unit you declare, or you don't move at all?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think being able to use a single strategem for a 17% chance to cause a mortal wound per model is worth having my unit completely obliterated next turn. That is still the issue. Not only that, but now I have to pay a CP to do it. So, you can still leave combat, I MIGHT cause 1-2 wounds on you when you, then you focus fire my melee unit. What is the incentive for rushing in, chainswords drawn, again?

But it's not "your unit" alone that is attacking when you utilize this stratagem.

It is the MODELS. FROM. YOUR. ARMY. that are within Engagement Range of the enemy unit that was chosen to Fall Back with.
.

You're emphasizing the wrong thing. Your army isn't the important part, Engagement Range is. Even if you somehow have 30 models engaged in combat with the unit that might try to fall back (which is a dubious prospect), that's still only about 5 MWs. Realistically, you might have a dozen or so. Or even less. That's why people aren't impressed.

 Apple Peel wrote:

changemod wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 xttz wrote:

Aash wrote:
So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.

I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful

Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.

Undercuts their concept entirely imo.

Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.

They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.

Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

changemod wrote:
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.

So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.

Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.

They already did. If I recall correctly, the issue was less the life support capabilities of the Redemptor, but rather too much heat produced by essentially overclocking the dread while fighting. How much fighting is too hard for super space marine tech?

No, there is lore that Redemptor Dreads cut corners on life support because Cawl sees the pilot as an easily replaced component.

tneva82 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.

Ok, let's break this down.

Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.

I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.

The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.

They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.

To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?

Or use the bodyguard rule to soak damage as before

which really isn't a great rule currently. It makes no difference if you're bodyguard is a grot or a 1000yr old veteran with a stormshield. It dies. Not a fan of the current bodyguard rule 9and all the different variations of it), so hopefully it gets changed, along with saviour protocols.