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.

**JohnnyHell**

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.]

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.

It’s a wargame. There have to be some concessions to real-world practicality. No one wants their model broken/damaged by their opponent clumsily plonking their army all over it/it’s base. It’s not hard to understand why the rules are like this. It’s not a simulator, it’s an overgrown board game at the end of the day.

**BaconCatBug**

Some points leaks, might be real, might not be. ATV are 80 points base, I am kind of sceptical because of that

Spoiler:

**tneva82**

Seeing GW's principle seems to be anything that has random shots but isn't auto hit is blast seems legit

**Jidmah**

Except the ork grenade relic, which can now hit stuff for 30 auto-hits

**tneva82**

JohnnyHell wrote:

It’s a wargame. There have to be some concessions to real-world practicality. No one wants their model broken/damaged by their opponent clumsily plonking their army all over it/it’s base. It’s not hard to understand why the rules are like this. It’s not a simulator, it’s an overgrown board game at the end of the day.

Yeah. AOS had plonk into top of base situation at one point(literally only way certain models could even attack certain models...). Unsurprisingly base to base mearurement became super popular house rule

**Thud**

Primaris Chaplain on bike?

I'm listening...

**Not Online!!!**

Well , finnally the thunderfire Canon costs more the a Quad launcher or heavy mortar.
About dann time.

Also yikes on the scouts... 14 PPM that is harsh man.

**PiñaColada**

Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.

**diepotato47**

Interesting that the ATV and Turret are listed with the Indomitus box...

**BrianDavion**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Some points leaks, might be real, might not be. ATV are 80 points base, I am kind of sceptical because of that

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

another reason to be skeptical is the ATV and turret are listed as part of the indomatus set, but they're specificly NOT from the indomatus set and are something else coming down the line (presumably with a codex and a multipart release of the indomatus units)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

diepotato47 wrote:
Interesting that the ATV and Turret are listed with the Indomitus box...

makes me IMMEDIATLY skeptical about that being legit

**diepotato47**

And Primaris Chaplain on Bike? That’s new, but not out of the question tbh

**Rinion**

Why would GW put a multimelta on the ATV when the new rifles exist? That's just weird!

**Jidmah**

The chaplain might be part of the biker box, like the MA big mek is part of the MANz box. It probably won't be much more than a fancy weapon and an additional head.

**tneva82**

Rinion wrote:
Why would GW put a multimelta on the ATV when the new rifles exist? That's just weird!

Maybe it's not multi melta but Cawl Melta Cannon. 48" 3d3 S9 -4 Dam 2d6 plus standard melta rule.

At this point wouldn't even surprise me.

**jivardi**

I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.

**addnid**

PiñaColada wrote:
Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.

That sounds waaaaay too cheap for the bolt version considering how intercessors are costed...

**BaconCatBug**

jivardi wrote:
I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.

You could just, ya know, not use Primarchs in a Matched Play game. If you want to use Primarch, you pay a CP penalty, it's that simple.

**Jidmah**

BaconCatBug wrote:
jivardi wrote:
I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.
You could just, ya know, not use Primarchs in a Matched Play game. If you want to use Primarch, you pay a CP penalty, it's that simple.

I also think that people should auto-lose games for fielding models I don't like. For example, every primaris marine should cost one CP

**Kdash**

Quick math check, and based on not knowing FW point changes nor the changes to melee weapons and wargear... My Phobos heavy fun Carcharodon list idea just went from 1958 to 2205.

(Will be different if melee weapons have also changed and camo cloaks and grav chutes have also changed).

**p5freak**

addnid wrote:
PiñaColada wrote:
Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.

That sounds waaaaay too cheap for the bolt version considering how intercessors are costed...

Boltstorm aggressors are 45ppm. The fragstorm grenade launcher is 5. Flamestorm aggressors are 40ppm.

**diepotato47**

So, if my math is correct:
Indomitus comes in at 1085 points for Marines (their Wargear looks to be included in the points listed)
If you buy one each of the Chaplain on Bike, ATV and Turret you get to 1485.
Not a bad haul for an edition launch, if these numbers are correct.

Edit, my math was not correct, derp. Updated numbers.

**Rinion**

Also, an intercessor with a theoretical multimelta would be 40, but you get extra wound, T5, assault, and shoot twice, GG

**PiñaColada**

p5freak wrote:
addnid wrote:
PiñaColada wrote:
Boltstorm and flamestorm agressors cost the same (40ppm)? Well, either the flamers have been -massively- buffed- or GW are still overpricing flamers to a ridiculous margin. Those two are nowhere near each other in actual viability and the boltstorm guys still seem quite undercosted here, whereas the flamestorm might be overcosted if anything.

That sounds waaaaay too cheap for the bolt version considering how intercessors are costed...

Boltstorm aggressors are 45ppm. The fragstorm grenade launcher is 5. Flamestorm aggressors are 40ppm.

You're right! I forgot that their extra shots don't come out of the gauntlets. In all honesty, it still sounds a bit too cheap IMO (I'd say 50ppm is where I'd place them) considering the, quite frankly, annoying amount of shots those guys spew out but at least there's some difference in cost.

**Kdash**

One thing that does stand out though....

The last PA book has Stern and the Harlie at 115 points....

This leak now has them at 125 lol. Probably correct but imo just another reason not to buy the last PA book.

**Latro_**

If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.

Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.

However they are 15/20!

So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.

Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...

EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU either GW blunder or the romulan memes are coming out

**jivardi**

BaconCatBug wrote:
jivardi wrote:
I really hope the leak about SC detachment allowing a free detachment if the HQ is a warlord pans out. 6 CP for Morty to be held in SR is a lot. I'd rather not start the game with 4 or 5 CP.
You could just, ya know, not use Primarchs in a Matched Play game. If you want to use Primarch, you pay a CP penalty, it's that simple.

Weren't you one of the posters who was complaining about having to pay for extra detachments?

If you want to soup you pay a penalty, it's that simple.

**diepotato47**

Latro_ wrote:
If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.

Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.

However they are 15/20!

So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.

Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...

EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU

Maybe, but is there any Infantry that can use a Twin Heavy Bolter? If not, 10/15 points for a Heavy Bolter, and 30 for a Twin Heavy Bolter, does make sense.

**Latro_**

diepotato47 wrote:
Latro_ wrote:
If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.

Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.

However they are 15/20!

So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.

Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...

EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU

Maybe, but is there any Infantry that can use a Twin Heavy Bolter? If not, 10/15 points for a Heavy Bolter, and 30 for a Twin Heavy Bolter, does make sense.

It would if it wasnt 17pts now.... not sure whats so great about a twin heavy bolter to nearly double its cost but keep a twin lascannon the same...

**Not Online!!!**

diepotato47 wrote:
Latro_ wrote:
If real (might actually add credence to it being real) is that heavy weps seems to have two costs one for infantry and one for vehicles, this would support the fact tanks can now move and fire them without -1.

Also lascannons and missile launchers are the same cost giving the whole blast weapons going up thing.

However they are 15/20!

So a lascannon is 10pts cheaper?! because its currently 25 <--- that makes me call a bit of fake.

Also its a grainy pic but a twin-heavy bolter looks to be 30pts, that cant be right. might be my eyes but its defo not a 10 because they have listed a normal heavy bolter as a 10 and clearly isnt a 2...

EDIT: Unless! heavy bolters are now much much better (like 4-5 shots) (didnt think of this) <--- but even then why are they then the same cost for infantry as now... IT MAKE NO SENSSE I TELL YOU

Maybe, but is there any Infantry that can use a Twin Heavy Bolter? If not, 10/15 points for a Heavy Bolter, and 30 for a Twin Heavy Bolter, does make sense.

Chaos doesn't have twin HB's and SM aswell to my knowledge on infantry, so yeah, that might be the vehicle chasis tax some weapons have to pay.
otoh chaos has the reaper AC which is basically a double AC on infantry, at the same price because damage but still,if we manage to get a hold on that if people would leak that and you'd have 2 costs for the reaper then that could be used as a comparison point?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Latro_ wrote:

It would if it wasnt 17pts now.... not sure whats so great about a twin heavy bolter to nearly double its cost but keep a twin lascannon the same...

well it is 2 heavy bolters on a vehicle so the price there kinda pans out.

**p5freak**

Vehicle weapons are going up because they can now shoot in melee. Twin heavy bolter is a vehicle weapon.