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.

Arguing about rules that are gonna get faqed.

 Latro_ wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Doesnt that RAW mean that they can onky ckaim the extra CP on the warlords detachment though?

Correct.
What the rule does is different, but it doesn't mean "RAW it doesn't work". Much like certain other rules regarding certain weapon types that don't technically do anything even though from a technical standpoint they work just fine, they just don't do what you want them to do, just because a rule doesn't do what it is "meant" to, or does what you "want" it to, doesn't mean the "RAW doesn't work".

Dont see why it does not apply to all of them. The detachment has a title 'Command benifits'
the rule is:

'that Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 1 Command Point. That Detachment’s Command Benefits are increased by 3 CommandPoints instead if it contains three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with this trait.'

0 + 3 = 3

Not giving CP is not the same as giving 0CP.

Yeah Bacon is right, I didn't realize that the phrase "command benefits" was used to describe what you get from having the warlord in that detachment. Since the phrase is the same, it'd work for that.

So you do get the +1/+3CP from your warlord's detachment, but not from any other detachments.

You don't get it for the others because there is no "Command Benefits" on those detachments. The only way (that we know of so far) to get Command Benefits in 9th is if your warlord is in that detachment. If you get Command Benefits, you can then increase it with the Red Corsairs rule. But you have to get benefits to begin with to be able to increase it. Even if it said: "Command Benefits, 0CP or 3CP if your warlord is in this detachment" you'd be ok. But it doesn't, so it doesn't work.

jivardi wrote:

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but games in 9th are fixed to 5 turns.

Nice change. It also forces people to play the mission from turn 3, not turn 4 or 5 hoping for a turn 6 or 7.

It was mentioned, and I agree. I like it. It also pretty much guarantees 3/4 CP usage a turn without having to think much about it.

I think the move to 5 turns is good too, at least in combination with the smaller board size. It gives gunlines less time to table the opponent, which lowers their relative power.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think the move to 5 turns is good too, at least in combination with the smaller board size. It gives gunlines less time to table the opponent, which lowers their relative power.

Also, even though you mentioned reserves being affected in a negative way by this, I think that it makes reserves more impactful. Sure, you may bring them on in T3 with 2 turns to go, but that also only gives your opponent 2 turns to deal with them. They can show up and do what you had in mind for them, whether it is capture an objective or disrupt your opponent's plans, and your opponent only has 2 turns to recover and/or dislodge them. I think we may see more reserves coming in later than T2 in 9th.

5 turns works well in AoS, happy to see it here. Still VERY happy to see the change to tabling your opponent not being auto-win.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So a Red Corsairs Battalion now has the Command Benefit of "+4 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment.", or if you have three or more units of CHAOS SPACE MARINES with the trait, "+6 Command points if your WARLORD is part of this Detachment."

Did I miss an article or something?

Is it that games end once Turn 5 is over, or is that when you roll to see if the game keeps going (rather than turn 6).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did I miss an article or something?

No, it's just the way that an old rule (Red Corsairs and their extra CP) interacts with a new rule (what "Command Benefits" are has changed).

Before you could do two Red Corsair Battalions for a 19 CP (3 standard + 5 battalion + 5 battalion + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #1 + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #2). Now "Command Benefits", from the wording we've seen, are tied to your Warlord. Thus you can only gain the +3CP for being Red Corsairs in the formation your Warlord sits within.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Is it that games end once Turn 5 is over, or is that when you roll to see if the game keeps going (rather than turn 6).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Did I miss an article or something?

No, it's just the way that an old rule (Red Corsairs and their extra CP) interacts with a new rule (what "Command Benefits" are has changed).

Before you could do two Red Corsair Battalions for a 19 CP (3 standard + 5 battalion + 5 battalion + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #1 + 3 Red Corsairs in battalion #2). Now "Command Benefits", from the wording we've seen, are tied to your Warlord. Thus you can only gain the +3CP for being Red Corsairs in the formation your Warlord sits within.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
@the_scotsman

Gw previewed a rule that stated you scored your pointa for holding the objectives at the start of your command phase, ie the start of your turn, so between you moving onto the objective in your movement phase and the start of your next command phase the enemy has a complete turn.

GW have now shown a conpletely different rule for actions that are scores at the end of your turn so which is correct? One the other or Both, I really wish i didn't believe it but I suspect GW have both in the mission pack and it will depend game to game how they arw scored.

A unit of Bullgryns or Tyranid Warriors is still going to be a much more durable unit for that purpose than an Infantry Squad or blob of Termagants.

I liked the reveal about actions just on the face of it, but at 2K points, any army that can't remove 30 T3 or T4 wounds with marginal saves has already lost. I can't see hordes or ten-model light infantry squads coming back just to perform actions or hold objectives.

That really, really depends on terrain, line of sight, etc. Currently you can get 30 cultists for 3 bullgryns. Will it be the same with the new points? No idea, but you need to cause 29 wounds to ensure a wipe of a 30 man and 9 for 3 bullgryns. It's a simple task to get cultists a -1 and a 5++ as well.

yukishiro1 wrote:
What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.

Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.

Or we could just get a combat rule that allows us to engage with every model within 1" of a model in engagement range or something.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.

Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.

Or we could just get a combat rule that allows us to engage with every model within 1" of a model in engagement range or something.

Or instead of made up rules, we can focus on real ones. [Seriously, that's how you start false rumours, and confuse rule discussions, especially with how scattershot and disorganized actual information is at this point.]


Here's a fun one: despite ignoring aircraft for almost all purposes during movement, you can't end _any_ move on an aircraft's base (sensible) or within the engagement range of enemy aircraft (that neither the aircraft nor the ground models really engage with). So you've got a rather large no-go zone that you can just park next to your units, and create a melee-free zone. The aircraft is free to zip off in a normal move the next turn, but you've got a bubble of 4.7" x 3.6" with at least a 0.5" engagement range all around. None of which can have any enemies in it. Best case, you can prevent charges altogether, worst case, you can funnel and prevent them from engaging with any but a few models and block off parts of your unit from pile in moves.

In theory, models with fly can engage the aircraft, but ground units? They're completely blocked from their final move positions by supersonic aircraft momentarily passing by overhead.

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
What there is going to be is a lot more division in the roles of units. If you want a unit to just sit on an objective and score points, there's a reason to take more than 5 models. But by doing so, you cripple the ability of the squad to actually fight effectively offensively.

Unless the consolidate and pile-in rules are changed to create more flexibility in how you can move, MSU 5-man squads are going to become the default for anything you want to use offensively. The limitations on how you can move 6+ man squads just make them a total mess to use offensively.

Or we could just get a combat rule that allows us to engage with every model within 1" of a model in engagement range or something.

Or instead of made up rules, we can focus on real ones. [Seriously, that's how you start false rumours, and confuse rule discussions, especially with how scattershot and disorganized actual information is at this point.]

No one was trying to make up rules. The point was more that consolidation rules are not the only way GW could "fix" the way larger units work in melee.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Is it that games end once Turn 5 is over, or is that when you roll to see if the game keeps going (rather than turn 6).

Unknown, but given the way it was mentioned, it appears to be 5 and done.

That makes sense for a Matched Play/tournament-style game. You want a fixed length with very specific scoring parameters so that all rankings can be apples to apples. So far, it looks like the scoring will be:

Primary Objective (60 Points): Up to 15 points a turn for Turns 2-5
Secondary Objective (45 Points): Up to 15 points per game for three different Secondary Objectives
Total Available: VP 105

60:45 weighs secondaries really heavily, I'm not sure that's great. I guess it depends on how many secondaries you can take that allow you to not play the mission.

yukishiro1 wrote:
60:45 weighs secondaries really heavily, I'm not sure that's great. I guess it depends on how many secondaries you can take that allow you to not play the mission.

It seems like there's something for every type of army, but you can't go all that route. Additionally, there seems to be a lot of opportunity to interrupt secondaries.

I do imagine i'll be using Psychic Interrogation, but then I bet that means I need to successfully cast a spell on an enemy character every turn. That may very well be hard to do.

Possible Blast Weapons list leak from Warhammer Competative on Reddit:

Don't see any fw specific weapons. Guess just like aircraft they'll be in the new fw books. If they ever decide to let us see them. The wait is killing me. Can't they just give us a little leak?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Possible Blast Weapons list leak:

Spoiler:

So looking for Tyranids, basically everything with random shots that is not a flamer is a blast according to this, with the exception of the Shockcannon for the Hive Guards. No Carnifex shooting plasma in combat

Interesting the haywire cannon is on that list but haywire blasters aren't, and more generally that assault weapons are on the list too, not just heavy.

jivardi wrote:
Not sure MSU will really be king.

Some secondaries, probably more than we know, require a unit to perform an action of taking an objective. If the unit is wiped out it obviously fails to complete the mission.

5 man units are going to find it difficult to survive an entire enemy turn of shooting and assault.

My Daemons and Sisters will make short work of 5 man squads really quick. I'd be more intimidated to assault 20 ork boys trying to gain an objective than I would be of assaulting 5 Intercessors.

But unless those actions are for PRIMARY objectives MSU has simple option. Don't pick secondaries that require actions. Secondaries are selectable and we already know secondaries will have non-action ones.

I don't know why I thought that GW would put frag missiles/grenades but not krak missiles/grenades on there. Don't know why I thought that...

And the Venom Cannon huh? I guess they were afraid of Hive Tyrants just being too damned powerful. Can't wait for the price on that gun to go up.

Watched the Vanguard Tactics video about "coherency". Took me 5 minutes to understand it.

They did a very good job covering various conga lines, how terrain interacts with the coherency rules and what the best method is to remove models without breaking coherency.

I think people are screeching harder than they need to.

Skared Cast also put up a bat rep using the new coherency rules. Didn't seem to make the game slower or harder to understand.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't know why I thought that GW would put frag missiles/grenades but not krak missiles/grenades on there. Don't know why I thought that...

And the Venom Cannon huh? I guess they were afraid of Hive Tyrants just being too damned powerful. Can't wait for the price on that gun to go up.

venom canon had a blast template back before 8th edition. assuming this is pretty GW mostly just translated every blast or small blast template gun into having the blast rule.

the intreasting thing is if this is true it means my guess that frag storm launchers are blast weapons. hopefully GW doesn't tweek their price points though, they where already not worth if over storm bolters.

A railgun is a blast weapon ?

I'm more surprised that both versions of the Exorcist have Blast. I expected it for the Conflag version, but not the regular one.

Not that it really helps it (the regular version) that much mind you. It already has a minimum of 3 shots, and its primary targets never come in units of more than 10.

 p5freak wrote:
A railgun is a blast weapon ?

rail gun has two firemodes, the first one is a heavy 1 shot used for dealing with tanks etc, and other is a scatter munitions shot that has 1d6 shots and is weaker aimed to sue against infantry etc. the blast thus impacts the submunitions

Or it's a really good fake and none of that is real.

jivardi wrote:
Or it's a really good fake and none of that is real.

even if it's a fake it's likely the real list isn't gonna be much differant. the main take away for me from this list is "no suprises"

According to a playtester posting on /tg these are the new points for some of the space marine models. There is no way of verifying this so take it with a grain of salt.