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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.

Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.

Well that's completely braindead.

Who the hell wrote this rule?

Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.

The funniest thing is that a Leman Russ with Battle Cannon against a 10 model unit gets a minimum of 6 shots (3 for the first shot, 3 for the second assuming 6+ models are left) while a Macharius Battle Cannon (which is basically two battlecannons and fires 2D6 shots) only gets a minimum of 3.

I'm going to assume that gets addressed at some point. But hey, 3 is better than 2!

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Please, read the rule. "A minimum of 3 attacks" is not the same as "Each dice is a minimum of 3". If you roll 3D3, you get a number between 3 and 9. So the "minimum of 3" doesn't actually benefit a 3D3 blast weapon.

Likewise, a 2D6 blast weapon can roll between 2 and 12. If you roll a 2, it becomes 3. If you roll a 3, it stays as a 3.

Well that's completely braindead.

Who the hell wrote this rule?

Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.

The funniest thing is that a Leman Russ with Battle Cannon against a 10 model unit gets a minimum of 6 shots (3 for the first shot, 3 for the second assuming 6+ models are left) while a Macharius Battle Cannon (which is basically two battlecannons and fires 2D6 shots) only gets a minimum of 3.

I'm going to assume that gets addressed at some point. But hey, 3 is better than 2!

What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....

Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.

I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

Gadzilla666 wrote:What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....

Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?

The Rapid Fire battle Cannon for Imperial Knights is a GW Example.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.

I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....

Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?

The Rapid Fire battle Cannon for Imperial Knights is a GW Example.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.

I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

A good example is the Wyvern 4D6 mortar. I mean, I assume they are going to make Mortars blast, right?

GW logic (Assuming the Wyvern mortar is still the same Heavy 4D6 weapon and made blast): Wyvern shooting at 10 Termagants, minimum of 4 shots. Shooting at 11 Termagants, minimum 24 shots.

Thier is one way that might actually dig GW out of this hole which is Grinding advance has finally been burned and removed so weapons can actually be fixed properly instead of being twice as efficent for 0 points.

At least in thew Leman Russ example you can explain it by the fact the gunner can aim for another dense blob as opposed to the Macharius which double-pounds a single group.

The more the blast weapons change gets explored, increasingly it's going to look like either the early metagame of 9E is going to be insanely awkward due to all the 8E artefacts, or the codex books are going to need to be so heavily rebalanced that they don't *actually* carry over all that much

Knowing GW, probably both

I'm hoping to see LoS/Wound Allocation/Cover and Points changes soon to give us a better idea of how this is all going to work. Mostly looking at the stuff coming out of GW lately it feels like they're just spiking the killing power even further and highlighting "how awesome" it all is, but I'm thinking of current lists now that already are insanely alpha strike-ey, and that are only going to be moreso with the changes unveiled thus far, and I don't think that's going to be a net positive. If we end up with older style rules for some of these things (no drawing LoS to banners or wingtips, no drawing LoS from the tips of gun barrels to targets they can't actually traverse to aim at, no spilling over of wounds onto models out of range/LoS, etc) I think things will work out. If they largely stay the same, woe betide they that go 2nd...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:What makes you think that? It's not like a Macharius is a fw unit and gw is about to release new fw boo.....

Oh yeah. No point assuming that the Macharius's rules are staying the same is there?

The Rapid Fire battle Cannon for Imperial Knights is a GW Example.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Real talk? They probably forgot that some "blast" weapons could have multiple dice. Or they wrote the blast rule only to buff D6 weapons.

I'd bet good money on the "they forgot" side of things. Just like I'd bet that whoever wrote the new infantry HW rule forgot/didn't know that 8th changed it to model rather than unit.

A good example is the Wyvern 4D6 mortar. I mean, I assume they are going to make Mortars blast, right?

GW logic (Assuming the Wyvern mortar is still the same Heavy 4D6 weapon and made blast): Wyvern shooting at 10 Termagants, minimum of 4 shots. Shooting at 11 Termagants, minimum 24 shots.

To be far in 7th when the new Wyvern kit came out, the Horde player was lucky to be hit with less than 24 shots, it was normally 5x what the unit had in it.

Bitharne wrote:
9th was looking great till this rule came out...so let’s hope more rules and points raises make it more of an annoyance than a real issue

Yeah, and I'm more annoyed at this rule from a transition perspective rather than a rules/balance POV.
Like, was anyone complaining about this? Was it actually an issue? Was this on anyone's "top 3" of things they wanted changed? Of the rules previewed, most required only minor FAQs or sweeping rules that could be universally applied. The points changes will require more updating, but we do that with Chapter Approved every year already. This one has major balance ramifications and requires a whole new set of keywords and bespoke FAQs to work for the 174 weapons that are changing. It seems like the desire for an "awesome" update is the enemy of a "good enough" update that would be a lot smoother.

Bitharne wrote:

GW logic (Assuming the Wyvern mortar is still the same Heavy 4D6 weapon and made blast): Wyvern shooting at 10 Termagants, minimum of 4 shots. Shooting at 11 Termagants, minimum 24 shots.

This, alone, shows how bad the rule is. I knew it would be impossible to make a good “blast weapon hurts hordes harder” rule since they’re have to use a single model count breakpoint that would create nonsensical situations.

This presumes you subscribe to the 'per attack' interpretation.

And let's step back at that logic. You apply the first half of the rule to only one dice, but the second half of the rule to all dice - why? They did not give an example of a 2D6 weapon so you're extrapolating regardless. The rule as written makes perfect sense if you're only using a D3 or a D6.

Let's look at a 2D6 weapons.

Shooting at 6 models it averages 7.9 by replacing one of the dice rolls of 1 or 2. Shooting at 11 models you get 12 shots.
If instead you think it is per dice then you get an average of 8 and 12.

That isn't wildly different, is it? You only get massive differences with D3-style weapons. Complaints around this may not be the best approach until we get clarification - especially regarding the lethality of guns in this edition without knowing cover and terrain.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
To be far in 7th when the new Wyvern kit came out, the Horde player was lucky to be hit with less than 24 shots, it was normally 5x what the unit had in it.

Wyvern came out in 6th. And it was a 3" template, not a 5" template, and it only fired 4 shots, so at best if your entire unit was under the 4 templates it would make out at 4x model count.

Getting to 24 hits would be pretty extreme even for a horde. I would say average number of hits-on-unit was in the range of 12-15 firing on clustered infantry in previous editions, from experience.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
To be far in 7th when the new Wyvern kit came out, the Horde player was lucky to be hit with less than 24 shots, it was normally 5x what the unit had in it.

Wyvern came out in 6th. And it was a 3" template, not a 5" template, and it only fired 4 shots, so at best if your entire unit was under the 4 templates it would make out at 4x model count.

Getting to 24 hits would be pretty extreme even for a horde. I would say average number of hits-on-unit was in the range of 12-15 firing on clustered infantry in previous editions, from experience.

It was "small blast" but i never said it was large, and yes it was 4 PER TANK in units of 3, with re-rolls on the scatter dice and almost perfect placements how the rules were, if you hit 3 guys, it was 3x4 per tank for 36 hits, if they miss placed their models and you hit 4-5 guys, well that unit was 100% dead.

This rule seems gamey and arbitrary, causing as many issues as it attempts to resolve.

Ah, they clarified on the stream that the rule makes EACH D6 rolled for a blast weapon count as a die-roll of 3 on squads of 6-10. Which means to get a D3 result, the D6 rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3, so results in 2 attacks minimum. So still a little weird, but consistent.

Honestly, the improvement for the average hits against 6-10 models is ~14% for a D6. It's not a huge improvement to expected damage, just consistency. The jump at 11 is a 58% improvement, but the vast majority of units are either taken at 10 models or 30. For hordes, you just accept that blasts deal lots of damage and the breakpoint isn't so jarring.

It does seem that armies that struggle to take effective MSUs are being unfairly punished with these rules. Most light infantry comes at a minimum model count of ten, and generally only perform well when taken in bigger numbers, which is now being punished by them being mulched instantly by blast weapons. As an ork player, I can comfortably say that our units that come at a minimum of five are generally gak unless you take them at max unit size.

I know things like Ork boys and termagants are cheap and they die in droves anyway, but points increases across the board and giving larger units the middle finger with blast weapons seems like someone upstairs at GW has a serious issue with certain armies.

Unless horde units actually get a points drop or a benefit for being taking in larger numbers, then no one is going to run them.

In the stream they specifically mention the anxiety that horde players would be feeling. The interviewer, Eddie Eccles, plays 'Nids and Orks specifically. They said several times that there are lots of rules that benefit horde players yet to be revealed.

I've liked all the rules they've posted so far, and everything I've heard from the play testers has been encouraging. I think they'll have some good stuff for hordes and you don't have to worry. They are purposefully revealing bits at a time to cause commotions and keep up engagement.

Martel732 wrote:
A marine with a meltagun averages 1.5 W at melta range vs t8. 1 solitary wound if t8 has a 5++. The math is not much better for other single shot weapons. Then look at what gw charges foe this privilege.

Theyre garbage, even for casual play because its so counter intiitive

I'm in. Lets assume that's a sister with a melta, because I want to prove a point.

That's a 9 point model with a 14 point gun (23 total) taking 1.5 wounds off say a land raider (277 points) if it hits and wounds which is 50/50 all in so .75 wounds

A leman russ with a battle cannon (137 points) who we can assume is moving under half etc with no upgrades (so just heavy bolter hull weapon) does roughly 2 damage.

Now obviously sisters come in units of 5, so 2 x 5 with 2 melta guns in each is 146 points, those 10 sisters do 3 wounds to the land raider + whatever the bolters/grenades accomplish.

Edit: further question to the thread, what units are people worried about having deleted by this change? The most expensive blobs I can think of are stealers or plaguebearers, nothing else above 10 points is seen in units over 10 anyway, so if losing 50% more termagants to a battlecannon is a concern that's not really that bad if they're firing their main weapons at cheap infantry. Obviously this is based on existing points costs.

You can't just say a melta gun is objectively worse than a single shot weapon without factoring in what's carrying it. Those sisters are small and can hide, move through ruins and are obsec. I'm intentionally leaving out faction abilities just so it's the naked profile.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
It does seem that armies that struggle to take effective MSUs are being unfairly punished with these rules. Most light infantry comes at a minimum model count of ten, and generally only perform well when taken in bigger numbers, which is now being punished by them being mulched instantly by blast weapons. As an ork player, I can comfortably say that our units that come at a minimum of five are generally gak unless you take them at max unit size.

I know things like Ork boys and termagants are cheap and they die in droves anyway, but points increases across the board and giving larger units the middle finger with blast weapons seems like someone upstairs at GW has a serious issue with certain armies.

Unless horde units actually get a points drop or a benefit for being taking in larger numbers, then no one is going to run them.

At least losing 10 IG or 20 orcs is just losing some light infantry. Imagine having a codex writen in a such a way that all rules work best with 10models, and you are an elite army, and you take msu units only as tax. But who knows maybe there are some rules to balance it all out, somehow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 789124 10827281 wrote:

I'm in. Lets assume that's a sister with a melta, because I want to prove a point.

That's a 9 point model with a 14 point gun (23 total) taking 1.5 wounds off say a land raider (277 points) if it hits and wounds which is 50/50 all in so .75 wounds

A leman russ with a battle cannon (137 points) who we can assume is moving under half etc with no upgrades (so just heavy bolter hull weapon) does roughly 2 damage.

Now obviously sisters come in units of 5, so 2 x 5 with 2 melta guns in each is 146 points, those 10 sisters do 3 wounds to the land raider + whatever the bolters/grenades accomplish.

Edit: further question to the thread, what units are people worried about having deleted by this change? The most expensive blobs I can think of are stealers or plaguebearers, nothing else above 10 points is seen in units over 10 anyway, so if losing 50% more termagants to a battlecannon is a concern that's not really that bad if they're firing their main weapons at cheap infantry. Obviously this is based on existing points costs.

You can't just say a melta gun is objectively worse than a single shot weapon without factoring in what's carrying it. Those sisters are small and can hide, move through ruins and are obsec. I'm intentionally leaving out faction abilities just so it's the naked profile.

the weapon has low range vs fast moving or long range units, melta armed units often end up doing nothing. A LR is always doing something and is always in range.

Karol wrote:

the weapon has low range vs fast moving or long range units, melta armed units often end up doing nothing. A LR is always doing something and is always in range.

Oh definitely, but just flatly saying that a battlecannon is better than a meltagun with no context is pointless. Majority of the time the blast weapons aren't going to do more to single targets than the single shot anti-armour weapons. A meltagun is probably the worst of those for the reasons you mention but a lascannon vs a battlecannon firing once because not all battlecannons are on a russ, the lascannon wins almost every time vs big armoured targets.

 DarkHound wrote:
Ah, they clarified on the stream that the rule makes EACH D6 rolled for a blast weapon count as a die-roll of 3 on squads of 6-10. Which means to get a D3 result, the D6 rolls of 1 and 2 count as 3, so results in 2 attacks minimum. So still a little weird, but consistent.

Honestly, the improvement for the average hits against 6-10 models is ~14% for a D6. It's not a huge improvement to expected damage, just consistency. The jump at 11 is a 58% improvement, but the vast majority of units are either taken at 10 models or 30. For hordes, you just accept that blasts deal lots of damage and the breakpoint isn't so jarring.

Nah. For hordes you accept GW made hordes suck and go for MSU. Luckily no army is without suitable alternatives but pity players who need to buy more models. I for one will shelve my orks until I have money to get units I need to avoid having 0% win rate. Having largely large groups of infantry existing collection is hosed in 9th ed. Odd gorkanaut and battlewagon doesn't cut it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Now obviously sisters come in units of 5, so 2 x 5 with 2 melta guns in each is 146 points, those 10 sisters do 3 wounds to the land raider + whatever the bolters/grenades accomplish.

Edit: further question to the thread, what units are people worried about having deleted by this change? The most expensive blobs I can think of are stealers or plaguebearers, nothing else above 10 points is seen in units over 10 anyway, so if losing 50% more termagants to a battlecannon is a concern that's not really that bad if they're firing their main weapons at cheap infantry. Obviously this is based on existing points costs.

You can't just say a melta gun is objectively worse than a single shot weapon without factoring in what's carrying it. Those sisters are small and can hide, move through ruins and are obsec. I'm intentionally leaving out faction abilities just so it's the naked profile.

Main reason why sisters use meltagun: a) we don't have any better AT weapons(for infantry) b) at least MD gives you quaranteed high rolls and even quaranteed wound making the 4+ to wound suck less.

One massive thing that almost everyone seems to have overlooked is that minimum size Guardian squads with a weapon platform now count as a horde because they're 11 models.

As if Guardians weren't in a rough enough spot already. Hopefully the points increases don't hit them at all.

This is probably the worst rule change they've revealed yet, though I accept that we haven't seen enough of the new rules to make a definitive judgement. One thing I'm wondering is whether this appendix of Blast weapons in the rulebook will just be adding the Blast type to each weapon or will it also be used to adjust the number of shots? Things like the Wyvern mortar spring to mind. They were clearly designed to get a consistent number of shots somewhere between 12-16 but the new rules give them a huge jump in effectiveness against 11+ models so maybe we'll see GW change the number of shots down to compensate?

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?

Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.

keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?

Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.

keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.

I'm hoping the the bonuses are good enough to counteract the downsides. It's just hard to stay positive when all you're seeing is downsides. I've just finished painting 60 boys and 40 grots and will be gutted if they're unusable

I'm already leaning towards a dreadbash list with nobs over boys at the moment, but I still want those boys to be useful.

I still don't think a single squad of guardsmen qualifies as a horde though.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?

Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.

keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.

I'm hoping the the bonuses are good enough to counteract the downsides. It's just hard to stay positive when all you're seeing is downsides. I've just finished painting 60 boys and 40 grots and will be gutted if they're unusable

I'm already leaning towards a dreadbash list with nobs over boys at the moment, but I still want those boys to be useful.

I still don't think a single squad of guardsmen qualifies as a horde though.

And when you remember that according to playtesters we haven't even seen all the nerfs yet...

Assuming 25% price hike made ork list if I were to repaint my army(numerous reasons why to do that. One being at least that way I would need less models bought to work with 9th ed). Ghaz, mek w/KFF, mek w/ssag, 3x10 grots, 5 meganobz in bonebreaka, 2 gorkanauts. Feels so small and weird with no boyz but those are just point sinks now.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I'm hoping that those numbers are a typo. How is 6 models a horde?

Looks like orks are going to be near unplayable if you want to use half of the units in the codex.

keep in mind they've suggested hoards also get some bonuses themselves. I know that AOS does this with some armies. for example if you take chaos warriors in a squad of 10 or more you can re-roll armor saves.

I'm hoping the the bonuses are good enough to counteract the downsides. It's just hard to stay positive when all you're seeing is downsides. I've just finished painting 60 boys and 40 grots and will be gutted if they're unusable

I'm already leaning towards a dreadbash list with nobs over boys at the moment, but I still want those boys to be useful.

I still don't think a single squad of guardsmen qualifies as a horde though.

They won't be unusable, they'll just die faster to blast weapons. I've got about 6k of chaos models and it dawned on me the only blast weapons I own in likelihood are frag grenades and soulburner petards, I'm sure other players are the same and not everyone has 15 leman russ sat at home ready to waste shots on cheap hordes.

They were already fairly weak in 8th. When 60 boyz dead in single turn isn't even particularly hard archievement they hardly were problem to begin with...

Anybody who thinks hordes are problem in balance has not been playing 40k for long time. Hordes being king is so 3 year ago thing.

And people might not have but they will get them. Just as GW planned.

tneva82 wrote:
Hordes being king is so 3 year ago thing.

Well then GW making these changes makes perfect sense. They're always in a rush to fix problems that were solved years ago.