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.
2020/06/26 13:02:52
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
Got ya sorted:
Spoiler:
there's a wealth of info our there from GW, just need to google it.
2020/06/26 13:03:21
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
I don't know how or why you seem to aggressively miss the point really. It's like you hear the word competitive and you shut literally everything else about an argument out.
The problem with competitive tau ISN'T THAT THEY ARE COMPETITIVE! Get it? Got it? Understand?
It's that competitive tau play in a non interactive way and provide poor game experiences for opponents and the players of the army itself. GW shouldn't make an army that can realistically play in this manner, it is bad for the game. Get it?
What people want is for tau to have a playstyle that is good that ISN'T reliant on avoiding interacting with the opponents army and entire phases of the game. This would be nothing but a boon for the game and for tau players.
I never said Tau being competetive was an issue. My issue was the claim that Tau could only be played one way (Seigler's list) and that there is no chance of counter play to Tau.
Honestly I get that people are concerned that Tau will remain castled up but with the sweeping points changes, erratas, and everything else we don't know up in the air I can't claim an army's future playstyle will match its current one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 13:08:05
2020/06/26 13:03:44
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
We haven't seen anything matched-play or organised-event-play specific yet for 9th.
But I'd guess it will almost certainly remain in place for organised-event play and might even be upgraded to an actual matched-play rule, given that how most people view/play the rule-of-3 in 8th.
2020/06/26 13:07:21
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Your opinion. Some could say t1 charges you can't prevent at all is boring uninteracting game. Are you advocating removing them?
I think GW likely has killed the alpha strike melee unit build with how you can't tripoint a single unit anymore, you can't declare a charge on a unit three units deep to consolidate into it and fight twice (or thrice). Melee feels like it'll be best unleashed en masse in mid to late game hitting with multiple units at a time.
At least that's how it feels with what I can see right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 13:14:51
2020/06/26 13:27:05
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
Got ya sorted:
Spoiler:
there's a wealth of info our there from GW, just need to google it.
Edit: I misread - my bad
2020/06/26 13:42:23
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
ragnorack1 wrote: A bit cheeky of me but been out the loop a while and trying to catch up with news on 9th edition.
Just wondering if there has been any mention on the rule of 3? I can imagine it would stay in place as it's effective at stopping spam, but at the same time my Tempestus and Guard would love to be able to take a few more officers.
Got ya sorted:
Spoiler:
there's a wealth of info our there from GW, just need to google it.
Edit: I misread - my bad
Rule of three has not been addressed as far as I'm aware.
No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby.
2020/06/26 13:52:41
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
I suspect the Rule of 3 still exists, even if the rule isn't referenced by name, since part of it, the detachment limits, is baked into the core rules we've seen.
2020/06/26 13:56:53
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2020/06/26 14:00:22
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
It's tied to the box set, so here's Thorpe talking about the lore of the Indomitus box:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 14:01:09
2020/06/26 14:08:46
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Combat Patrol is going to rock your world. Learn all about how small games will work in #New40K and check out some sample armies.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2020/06/26 14:12:06
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
My bet: very similar to meeting emgagements in sigmar.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/06/26 14:12:08
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Huh. I think I see how they're going to keep Dark Eldar as is.
Some verbiage as to how the haemonculous/archon/succubus/whatever all count as a 'warlord' in patrol detachments, and a special bonus of +2 detachments if they're patrols.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/06/26 14:21:13
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2020/06/26 14:25:18
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
The rule of 3 didn't exist as a rule before. It was a tournament suggestion for 2000P, nothing more. Some people even ignored that the suggestion varied by game size. I could imagine that GW now ties that suggestion to their new playstyles, like combat patrol, strike force and so on. But also restricting it to organized play, like before.
2020/06/26 14:25:57
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
Part of those "guidelines" brought about the detachment limits, which are in the main rules now.
2020/06/26 14:26:02
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
Part of those "guidelines" brought about the detachment limits, which are in the main rules now.
The so-called 'Rule of Three' also covers how many times you can take a particular datasheet, something which is unlikely to be limited by the rules.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2020/06/26 14:31:10
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Honestly with additional detachments now coming at a cost, I'm not sure there's really much of a reason for the "Rule" of 3 to exist as there's now a downside for taking more than 3 of the same unit. Unless you're fielding a Brigade, but most armies either can't do that as 1500-2000pts, or can't do that while also taking 4 or more of the same non-Troop.
Also the Detachment guidelines existed in 8th from the very beginning, while the Datasheet requirements had to be FaQ'd in. It's not like they're intrinsically tied together and unseperable
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 14:33:15
2020/06/26 14:31:30
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
2CP for a patrol was what I expected, and it's good to see they didn't go in the direction some people were saying with patrols being more than bats. This seems a pretty clear sign that the specialist detachments will also not cost more than bats, and are unlikely to cost more than 2CP, maybe even only 1CP.
Hope to hear soon whether the "soup penalty" is a real thing or if it was just a misleading way to describe the detachment tax.
2020/06/26 14:31:51
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Ghaz wrote: I seriously doubt GW is going to preview the suggested Organised Event Guidelines unless they're really desperate for another Warhammer 40,000 Daily topic...
Based on how GW is trying to make this the one rule system to rule them all, I think they'll just bake it into the core rules from the get go.
Guidelines ≠ Rules. We've already seen the tournament die-hards trying to make suggested minimum table size for a game the only table size.
Part of those "guidelines" brought about the detachment limits, which are in the main rules now.
The so-called 'Rule of Three' also covers how many times you can take a particular datasheet, something which is unlikely to be limited by the rules.
Nah, it could be part of Matched Play easilly. "When building an army for use in Matched Play no datasheet may be used more than three times unless the datasheet is a Troops choice."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly with additional detachments now coming at a cost, I'm not sure there's really much of a reason for the "Rule" of 3 to exist as there's now a downside for taking more than 3 of the same unit. Unless you're fielding a Brigade, but most armies either can't do that as 1500-2000pts, or can't do that while also taking 4 or more of the same non-Troop.
Even with a cost some combos were so gamebreaking that people would happily pay CP for them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 14:32:36
2020/06/26 14:36:12
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
A bat + a specialist detachment is described as viable by all the play testers who have spoken on it, which provides up to 9 of whatever choice you want (if 12 for elites). I'm sure the rule of 3 is still intact.
2020/06/26 14:41:57
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
Hmm, under current rules that admech force (24PL in 9th apparently) is also 24PL in 8th. It is however 317 points completely barebones up to 373 points in its most expensive loadout (flamers on the destroyers, 3 arquebus, omnispex and phosphor + arc maul on the alpha. It's a super weird loadout, but just for arguments sake).
So the readjustment of PL they've stated to incorporate doesn't seem to be there. Unless everything is going up significantly in cost
2020/06/26 14:43:21
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
I mean you can play 40k at this low level without the need for a special set of rules. The only difference here seems to be 3 rather than 12 CP, and only Patrol.
So why bother?
You can expand into it pretty easily from Kill Team? This is all about lowering the cost of entry for new blood into the hobby after all.
I await the Combat Patrol GT circuit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PiñaColada wrote: Hmm, under current rules that admech force (24PL in 9th apparently) is also 24PL in 8th. It is however 317 points completely barebones up to 373 points in its most expensive loadout (flamers on the destroyers, 3 arquebus, omnispex and phosphor + arc maul on the alpha. It's a super weird loadout, but just for arguments sake).
So the readjustment of PL they've stated to incorporate doesn't seem to be there. Unless everything is going up significantly in cost
They could have revalued how many points each PL is worth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/26 14:43:52
2020/06/26 14:51:44
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
