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.

All right ladies and gents, I've taken a look at the CA preview (NZ preorder) and found the rules for Cities of death (if anyone is interested):
- Obscured targets: if every model is at least partially obscured, then -1 to hit. (vehicles/monsters must be 50% obscured)
- Lucky hits: 6s always hit
- Streets: increase move by 3" on streets
- dangerous terrain: advance/charge through dangerous terrain then roll d6, on 1 suffer 1 MW.
- Height: improve AP by 1 against low elevation

Didn't see anything about soft vs hard cover, but might be a different page.

Anyhoo, Cities of Death continues to be my default game mode

All of those sound great save the height thing. Removing 1ap worth of cover bonus seems more appropriate to me.

Dandelion wrote:
All right ladies and gents, I've taken a look at the CA preview (NZ preorder) and found the rules for Cities of death (if anyone is interested):
- Obscured targets: if every model is at least partially obscured, then -1 to hit. (vehicles/monsters must be 50% obscured)
- Lucky hits: 6s always hit
- Streets: increase move by 3" on streets
- dangerous terrain: advance/charge through dangerous terrain then roll d6, on 1 suffer 1 MW.
- Height: improve AP by 1 against low elevation

Didn't see anything about soft vs hard cover, but might be a different page.

Anyhoo, Cities of Death continues to be my default game mode

That sounds like an intense game, and I love it. You wouldn't need a full urban board to do it, just a good variety of terrain to assign rules to. I'm afraid I don't have the rules proficiency to add five new rules without starting with some small games... I can barely maintain the core rules in my brain when it's a month or two between games.

Assault Marines down a point, Contemptor Mortis down about 20, twin lascannons down 10, the heavy flamers on my Leviathan are down a few points...

Dang, my Army is getting like 80 or so points back. With some thought I might be able to squeeze my ancient in!

First impressions: points changes are not nearly enoguh to make a dent in the meta.
1-2 more units won't allow AdMech/GK/Necrons/etc to beat Double Spear Ynnari, the Castellan list, the Loota star or the Tsons+Nurgle+fluff lists.

I would rather GW make smaller changes and risk not going far enough than go for big changes and just have massive pendulum swings that we've been dealing with for... Well ever since I started the hobby. GW gets a lot of crap for crappy balance, a good amount of it very justified. But to look on the positive side, it seems these days they are actually trying to get better at it. I think that more than just learning to balance things better it is a bit of a 'culture shock' from the Kirby decades where balance was barely a concern if at all. They need to learn how to balance things better but they also need to learn what balance even looks like, what it means to the community, and how it plays out on the table.

They are still so bad at it it's silly though. Whoever they tap for playtesting is either giving them terrible feedback or simply not being listened to and there is no excuse for not changing that.

Justyn wrote:

All of those sound great save the height thing. Removing 1ap worth of cover bonus seems more appropriate to me.

What's the difference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

They are still so bad at it it's silly though. Whoever they tap for playtesting is either giving them terrible feedback or simply not being listened to and there is no excuse for not changing that.

Meanwhile how GW describes CA:

- The latest matched play points updates, painstakingly balanced and tuned in conjunction with major tournament organisers and our playtesters.

They are definitelly not listening to their testers or they listen to all of them equally and have too many fluff testers who mess everything up.

Very often I've heard a competant tester say "I don't know why they did this" and "I don't know why they just didn't do that".

And I don't understand why GW shouldn't make BIG changes. I know I would in their place. I'm talking about buffs, not nerfs here. Why are the buffs so small. I'd give the bad armies at least 600 more pts to work with. That'd shake up the meta, sell more models. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Leave those tacticals untouched. -1pt for Necron Warriors is totally enough >_>

What I don't understand is why they keep the balancing process so close to the chest. Why so secretive about points? Why send out fake CAs to keep leaks down? It's all pointless and a waste of time. Just change points during the FAQs and monitor actual reactions. Throwing the points in CA is just wasted effort. I'd buy CA for the Cities of Death rules alone...

What's the difference?

Ask the Imperial Fists?

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
They are definitelly not listening to their testers or they listen to all of them equally and have too many fluff testers who mess everything up.

Very often I've heard a competant tester say "I don't know why they did this" and "I don't know why they just didn't do that".

And I don't understand why GW shouldn't make BIG changes. I know I would in their place. I'm talking about buffs, not nerfs here. Why are the buffs so small. I'd give the bad armies at least 600 more pts to work with. That'd shake up the meta, sell more models. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Leave those tacticals untouched. -1pt for Necron Warriors is totally enough >_>

For Necrons this means the rumors were true that GW thinks Necrons should play this way...Sad necrodermis tears are falling. If I want to play my Crons I guess I have to wait till 9th edition.

So, If I compted correctly, a 5man intercessor team is now 85 pts, where a 5 man tactical team with plasma and combi plasma is 87, and the tactical has cheap transports compared to intercessor... is the tactical still worth taking then?

Berthier wrote:
So, If I compted correctly, a 5man intercessor team is now 85 pts, where a 5 man tactical team with plasma and combi plasma is 87, and the tactical has cheap transports compared to intercessor... is the tactical still worth taking then?

I think 4 plasma shots is worth 2 points. Tacs still have more offensive potential than Intercessors. Intercessors are harder to delete. Neither will actually do much of anything on the table, though.

Dandelion wrote:

Justyn wrote:

All of those sound great save the height thing. Removing 1ap worth of cover bonus seems more appropriate to me.

What's the difference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

They are still so bad at it it's silly though. Whoever they tap for playtesting is either giving them terrible feedback or simply not being listened to and there is no excuse for not changing that.

Meanwhile how GW describes CA:

- The latest matched play points updates, painstakingly balanced and tuned in conjunction with major tournament organisers and our playtesters.

Difference is not making terminators save on 3+。(for example. Or not negating save of ork boyz in open etc)

And what gw says and does aren't related. Marketing. Or do you think they will say truth when it's negative for sales? According to them everything they release is always awesome and perfect. Need to be silly to take marketing speech at face value. No company whatsoever says truth

Banville wrote:

Berthier wrote:
So, If I compted correctly, a 5man intercessor team is now 85 pts, where a 5 man tactical team with plasma and combi plasma is 87, and the tactical has cheap transports compared to intercessor... is the tactical still worth taking then?

I think 4 plasma shots is worth 2 points. Tacs still have more offensive potential than Intercessors. Intercessors are harder to delete. Neither will actually do much of anything on the table, though.

With the upcoming Vigilus detachments, for a total of 3CP (!) a unit of 10 Intercessors with Bolt rifles will be able to shoot at Rapid Fire 2 for a turn. 40 S4 AP-1 shots at 15" are good.

Stompa mob and the rest of the Tempestus Drop Force. Aerial Fire Support is not bad.

Pick an ORK SUPERHEAVY DETACHMENT?!?!?
Only useable in 3k+ pts games I guess? >_>

 axisofentropy wrote:
Stompa mob and the rest of the Tempestus Drop Force. Aerial Fire Support is not bad.

Lol. With 900 pts stompas super heavy det sure is likely. Just need 3k game min!

anyone find out if there is truth to the changes for legion traits (minus 1 to hit becoming +1 to cover save)

Hard to read, but I can make them out:

Stompa gets Character and can take a warlord trait. The Traits are:

Gork's One: Add 1 to hit rolls and wound rolls for attacks made by your warlord in the fight phase.

Mork's One: Add 1 to wound rolls for shooting attacks made by your Warlord.

Relic: 5++ save.

Stomp Stomp Stomp: Pick a stompa within 1" of enemy units. Enemies within 3" of that unit suffer a mortal wound on a dice roll that I can't quite make out.

Stompa-Porta: Tellyporta a stompa.


Stompa's needed help, and they really needed an Invul. But this was a dumb way to get it. Regular stompas are not viable. You'll have to drop the CP on this to make them work. That said, Stompa-porting in a melee geared one with Gork's One and the 5++ will be hilarious.

Berthier wrote:
So, If I compted correctly, a 5man intercessor team is now 85 pts, where a 5 man tactical team with plasma and combi plasma is 87, and the tactical has cheap transports compared to intercessor... is the tactical still worth taking then?

Yes. You use your tac marine models as sternguard.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
First impressions: points changes are not nearly enoguh to make a dent in the meta.
1-2 more units won't allow AdMech/GK/Necrons/etc to beat Double Spear Ynnari, the Castellan list, the Loota star or the Tsons+Nurgle+fluff lists.

Can you give me a TL;DR of how the Loota star works? And why it's competitive? I was hoping the local Ork fanatic here would be all over that fresh cheese, sadly he hasn't been showing up with anything approaching competitive.

Bad Mooonz 2-3 battalions with around 60 grots, 3 weirdboyz and 10+15 lootas. You mob them up to 25 and let rip: re-roll 1s, autohit and explode on 5+ and shoot twice all at 48" range. Wanna do something against that? Ok, have fun shooting grots instead thanks to grot shield.
It's stupid powerful. It's like admech Dakkastellans that can move, can't be shot, can teleport and have bigger range. It's crazy. -1s to hit do nothing against them.
Third battalion is Evil sunz with 90 boyz that just deepstrike or dajump or green tide every turn with their 8" re-rollable charge (84%). When they make it - fight twice and delete anything they touch.

 slave.entity wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
First impressions: points changes are not nearly enoguh to make a dent in the meta.
1-2 more units won't allow AdMech/GK/Necrons/etc to beat Double Spear Ynnari, the Castellan list, the Loota star or the Tsons+Nurgle+fluff lists.

Can you give me a TL;DR of how the Loota star works? And why it's competitive? I was hoping the local Ork fanatic here would be all over that fresh cheese, sadly he hasn't been showing up with anything approaching competitive.

You have 25 lootas that average more hits than there are lootas(27) with s7, -1, dam2 regardless of hit modifiers. Also they can be da jumped so t1 they can hide out of los and get to good los. They can get wounds transfered to grots at 2+.

Won't be metadefining though. Eat 5-6 cp turn, struggle with knights and aeldar soups delete unit 5/6 times without trouble. As aeldar soup is so common and such hard counter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Stompa's needed help, and they really needed an Invul. But this was a dumb way to get it. Regular stompas are not viable. You'll have to drop the CP on this to make them work. That said, Stompa-porting in a melee geared one with Gork's One and the 5++ will be hilarious.

Biggest troubie is min 3 superheavies. Even with forge heavies fitting stompa and 2 other superheavies in 2k will be hard

tneva82 wrote:

And what gw says and does aren't related. Marketing. Or do you think they will say truth when it's negative for sales? According to them everything they release is always awesome and perfect. Need to be silly to take marketing speech at face value. No company whatsoever says truth

It was a joke...

So just redid all my csm lists and one space marine:
3 WE
1 DG
1 IW
1 space marine
---- noticing 100-150pts more pts in each list on average, the cultist hike isn't bad for me when so much other stuff dropped

spawn going down is awesome, i'm rocking a full 5 now in lists where i stuck a couple in for pts spare.

land raider once you factor in the twin las drop is a crazy saving.

fun times

I’d say I can’t believe GW thinks that detachment will make even ONE stompa usable; but I can. I can believe they’re entirely out of touch with everything.

And on top of it, you have to bring three; but only one gets the real benefits. Sure, you can tellyporta them all for 12-15cp, but...

Once again, Orks get worse than nothing - this takes up a development slot/opportunity, and is actively beyond garbage.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
First impressions: points changes are not nearly enoguh to make a dent in the meta.
1-2 more units won't allow AdMech/GK/Necrons/etc to beat Double Spear Ynnari, the Castellan list, the Loota star or the Tsons+Nurgle+fluff lists.

Oh I think there are changes which will change the meta. I am not so sure that you will like the new meta any better than the old but a change is coming - unless TO's step in with PL limits or somesuch.

The Castellan list is obsolete. The Ta'unar list does exactly the same thing but with macro weapons that delete Imperial Knights. As a T'au player I think a 750 point drop on the Ta'unar is a mistake but unless someone has been playing silly games with the leak images that appears to be what has happened. You want a Castellan equivalent that can off-load wounds to shield drones, re-roll its hits and wounds and ignore any penalties it has for eventually taking wounds? In a faction that can easily build enough CP that it does not need an allied CP farm?

That is just what I can see as a T'au player. Give it a few days for players to go through all the leaks before we start seeing what is now possible and what that means to the top tables. Whether we should be all that bothered about what dominates the podium positions in tournaments is a whole other discussion but I am fairly sure that what will dominate those positions is about to change.

As for the middle tables where most of the players are, they were not in a terrible place before and the general thrust of the points changes should balance out things a bit better. Most armies were already in the 40-60 win percentage range that means average players on the middle tables could and should be getting 2-3 wins on their weekend which is about as balanced as you need. The few armies that were below that saw points tweaks that should IMO be enough to bring them within that reasonably balanced bracket.

Thanks tneva82 and rvd1ofakind for the concise description.

fe40k wrote:


Once again, Orks get worse than nothing - this takes up a development slot/opportunity, and is actively beyond garbage.

Idk man the loota-star described to me above sounds pretty nasty.

 slave.entity wrote:
Thanks tneva82 and rvd1ofakind for the concise description.

fe40k wrote:


Once again, Orks get worse than nothing - this takes up a development slot/opportunity, and is actively beyond garbage.

Idk man the loota-star described to me above sounds pretty nasty.

That's not in ca though. Or vigillus. The stompa mob is basically waste. 2k game not enough to field it and even bigger not making stompa worth it. And not all have 2 fw super heavies. 3 stompa? 3k, worth less than 2k and not many own 3. Would be better in net free bonus. To have to pay? Lol.

I'm a bit miffed that a powerfist is 9 points when an identical ork powerklaw is 13. And before people jump in and say that you pay more because a nob is S5, then why is an ork rokkit launcha 1 point mor than a plasma gun now, with the vastly inferior BS? You shouldn't have it both ways. Maybe orks will get updated in the next FAQ but I was under the assumption the basically wrote CA and the ork 'dex at the same time, so they should've seen this coming. See also: Ork warbikers/SM bikes, Flamers/ork burnas, Heavy stubbers/big shootas etc..

Back on track, have we had any leaks in regards to any CP/Ally/Soup/Detachment/Cover rules changes from CA?