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.

Wakshaani wrote:
On Burnaboyz?

Honestly, at this point, I'd rather see them gone and just woven into Slugga Boyz as a weapon option.

(Slugga Boyz could take a Burna or Big Choppa every ten models, Shoota Boyz could take a Big Shoota or ROkkit for every ten models.)

They just don't *work* as a unit in and of themselves.

Burnas should be anti infantry specialist
Burnas need Over 9in range (prefer 12in) and usable by kommandos again
The d3 hits is hot garbage... it should either be a flat 3 hits or d6 like the majority of flamers in game
In other words 12" Assault3 S4 Ap-2 D1 in both melee and shooting

Pyromaniacs is literal garbage and it should be either reroll wounds or +1 to wound rolls to all infantry and monstrous creatures
Also give them burna bottles grenades
6in grenade 2d6 s4 ap0 d1 ignore cover

Or if they want to go all 9th edition instead of flamers make them blast weapons and give them d6 hits. Meaning on units of 6+ they do 3 hits min and on units of 11+ they do 6 hits min per model. But the point is burnas should be anti horde specialists

Before too many people panic about the blast rules, GW seems to be borrowing a lot from AOS's innovations with this edition. they've said some goodies for hoards etc are coming up one thing AOS does in some of their army books is give some units a bonus if you take more then X number of units. for example if your chaos warrior squad is 10 or more models, you may re-roll your armor saves. it's possiable we're gonna see things like this in 40k.
which would honestly be a good movie because even the 8E rules tended to push MSU

gungo wrote:
Or if they want to go all 9th edition instead of flamers make them blast weapons and give them d6 hits. Meaning on units of 6+ they do 3 hits min and on units of 11+ they do 6 hits min per model. But the point is burnas should be anti horde specialists

Then they wouldn't be shooting in melee. Flamers aren't blast weapons in 9th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Before too many people panic about the blast rules, GW seems to be borrowing a lot from AOS's innovations with this edition. they've said some goodies for hoards etc are coming up one thing AOS does in some of their army books is give some units a bonus if you take more then X number of units. for example if your chaos warrior squad is 10 or more models, you may re-roll your armor saves. it's possiable we're gonna see things like this in 40k.
which would honestly be a good movie because even the 8E rules tended to push MSU

GW says a lot. Generally opposite of truths. Playtesters meanwhile have said we haven't even SEEN all the nerfs...

GW is pushing for elite units, vehicles and monsters. Hordes sold enough at the start of 8th ed hard to sell more so now GW is going to push for opposite since market is less saturated there. And GW is about as subtle about that as nuclear missile.

Actually, traditionally the idea of burnas was that they could clear out light infantry with flamers and cut apart armor apart with their cutter melee weapon.

The are weak on the first part and fail hard on the second, so my suggestion would be bringing them back to d6 hits on the burna profile and make the cutter profile deal 2 damage, so the can actually threaten vehicles and elite infantry in combat. It would also generate a niche for them, as other units in the codex can't easily clear out elite infantry in combat.

BrianDavion wrote:
Before too many people panic about the blast rules, GW seems to be borrowing a lot from AOS's innovations with this edition. they've said some goodies for hoards etc are coming up one thing AOS does in some of their army books is give some units a bonus if you take more then X number of units. for example if your chaos warrior squad is 10 or more models, you may re-roll your armor saves. it's possiable we're gonna see things like this in 40k.
which would honestly be a good movie because even the 8E rules tended to push MSU

I don't think 8th favored MSU over large squads, I think it worked fine for both. Large squads benefited most from stratagems and received buffs from being min 10 or min 20 (boyz, stealers, etc.). But MSU was better for covering more ground, having your opponent risk overkill, etc.

I don't think 9th will change this, because MSU will require many detachments, and "waste" CP, and rumors of extra benefits (we haven't heard of yet) for large units have been persistent for a while (granted, this may prove to be untrue or not quite true).

I think GW has got the balance right regarding MSU / large units. They will definately screw other stuff up, though. I have absolutely no doubts.

Plenty of people are saying "maybe" there's extra benefits. That doesn't make it rumour. We have had playtesters say there's nerfs we haven't heard though...

And detachments isn't big issue. For one when that becomes issue you can usually have brigade. And point increases means you are cutting down in # of units anyway and since 9th favours elites those units aren't cheap. Having made bunch of lists I rarely run into slot issues with even just battalion.

Hordes are so screwed. Large light infantry was already struggling in 8th. Now they are screwed hard. 10 was already largest you generally wanted to go and that was if you had good stratagem.

tneva82 wrote:

gungo wrote:
Or if they want to go all 9th edition instead of flamers make them blast weapons and give them d6 hits. Meaning on units of 6+ they do 3 hits min and on units of 11+ they do 6 hits min per model. But the point is burnas should be anti horde specialists

Then they wouldn't be shooting in melee. Flamers aren't blast weapons in 9th ed.
.

They wouldn’t anyway since it’s infantry not vehicles
Also burnas have a seperate melee profile

IMHO flamers should be given a special rule (I dunno call it "Flame") rule that has the same rule as blast except can be used in close combat.

BrianDavion wrote:
IMHO flamers should be given a special rule (I dunno call it "Flame") rule that has the same rule as blast except can be used in close combat.

Just crib the name from the exception rule for Templates re: Overwatch from 6th/7th - "Wall of Death".

What about giving burnas 2 profiles; Burna and Kutta, but both are shooting profiles?

Burna would be 9" range Assault D6 autohits S4 AP-1
Kutta would be 3" range Pistol 1 S7 AP-3 Dam2

Thus the kutta can be fired in close combat, but also be useful at short range if you get it lined up well, increasing their usefulness.

With the changes to vehicles in 9th ed in mind, what do people think about putting a skorcha onto your deff dreads to help against them getting tar pitted?

Madjob wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IMHO flamers should be given a special rule (I dunno call it "Flame") rule that has the same rule as blast except can be used in close combat.

Just crib the name from the exception rule for Templates re: Overwatch from 6th/7th - "Wall of Death".

How was that?

 DrGiggles wrote:
With the changes to vehicles in 9th ed in mind, what do people think about putting a skorcha onto your deff dreads to help against them getting tar pitted?

It'll probably just depends on points cost, but a Skorcha is no longer straight up unviable anymore, where you might be lucky to get a shot off once every SEVERAL games.

For a CC focused dread, having 1 Skorcha doesn't seem too bad (lose 1 attack for flaming gits).

Edit: honestly though, with the new Deff Dread stratagem where you can get bonus attacks for killing models, it might just be more prudent to use that over spending the extra on a skorcha.

 Emicrania wrote:

Madjob wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IMHO flamers should be given a special rule (I dunno call it "Flame") rule that has the same rule as blast except can be used in close combat.

Just crib the name from the exception rule for Templates re: Overwatch from 6th/7th - "Wall of Death".

How was that?

Overwatch couldn't be fired by blast/large blast/template in 6th/7th because Overwatch = Snap Shots (moving and firing Heavy but only hitting on 6s, disallowed for those weapon types) but Templates had an exception under their rules for Overwatch specifically, titled "Wall of Death" which let them fire D3 automatic hits in overwatch.

I was just suggesting taking that name and using it for a special rule on Flamer weapons to fire them in CC.

So cover won’t be saving Orks. Still favours elite armies.

Sigh.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/11/terrain-rules-and-line-of-sightgw-homepage-post-1/

tulun wrote:
So cover won’t be saving Orks. Still favours elite armies.

Sigh.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/11/terrain-rules-and-line-of-sightgw-homepage-post-1/

I think 'obscuring' will help quite a bit on boards with a good amount of ruins on them (assuming the large ruins sit in the middle of the board).

Not sure what to make of the 'heavy cover' rule though. Is it supposed to simulate fighting in tight corridors/thick wooded areas?

 DrGiggles wrote:

tulun wrote:
So cover won’t be saving Orks. Still favours elite armies.

Sigh.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/11/terrain-rules-and-line-of-sightgw-homepage-post-1/

I think 'obscuring' will help quite a bit on boards with a good amount of ruins on them (assuming the large ruins sit in the middle of the board).

Not sure what to make of the 'heavy cover' rule though. Is it supposed to simulate fighting in tight corridors/thick wooded areas?

Hiding 30 boys fully behind terrain will be hard. That’s sort of the problem.

I’m not sure. Possibly. But my MANz love this and I never want my boys in cover, just behind it.

Our 18+ wound Gorks can potentially can shot without shooting back. Very interesting.

Obsuring is worded very weirdly, i had to read that like 5 times to understand it.
Also is it just me or does this shaft 18+ wound models?

I'm dumb. Charging REMOVES the armour save bonus. Subsequent rounds both would get the bonus.

This still heavily favours elite armies, but a charging Mega Nob into heavy cover gets a 1+ save, and a charging Nob gets a 3+ save. That's solid.

It's not like you could hide a naut under any previous rule-set unless your boards look like like tneva's.

It also reads a lot like you can still have true LoS blocking things in addition to obscuring terrain.

Oof.

Keeping the +1 armor save, vs giving an invulnerable save like older editions, was a deathblow for hordes.

Looks like this'll be a Deathskulls and Badmoons edition for the Orks, using small units of high-cost models, or vehicles, and leaving the boys at home.

Sorry Goffs and Snakebites. Better luck in 10th. :(

the best way im seeing this is basically oldschool LoS rules are back, except its still not on a model by model basis (im going to shoot the ones not in cover) with the added LoS blocking 5" tall terrain thing.
Which other than multi leveled things...isnt really much. Though the GW terrain will be rather annoying, that absolutely huge 2-level wall for instance will be annoying.

Wakshaani wrote:
Oof.

Keeping the +1 armor save, vs giving an invulnerable save like older editions, was a deathblow for hordes.

Looks like this'll be a Deathskulls and Badmoons edition for the Orks, using small units of high-cost models, or vehicles, and leaving the boys at home.

Sorry Goffs and Snakebites. Better luck in 10th. :(

Ork Boyz might have uses in outflank / deep strike maneuvers like they do now, but unless they stay the same cost, or somehow these other terrain keywords throw them a bone, it seems like you don't wanna start them on the table.

Edit: from someone I know who works at a GW store and probably has more spoilers (he can't break NDA), board density of city terrain will help a bit (IE, you might be able to hide some stuff).

In his opinion, though, it seems like elite heavy infantry will thrive under the rules we've seen and he's seen. Terminators and Primaris.

Honestly I love Mega Nobs, nobs, Killa Kans, and Deff Dreads in general, so this is all fine. I just think cover being an elite armies game seems rather stupid.

Terrain Cover is once again per model
Ghaz is under 18 wounds
The cover rule is weirdly written but the charging unit removes the melee bonus save From the defender but will still benefit from it if the model ends it’s charge on the terrain. <- it doesn’t make sense but that’s how it’s written to a boon to melee

I’m still seeing MSU all day long..

Also the +1 save is helpful to bloodaxes
And remember the kff change

tulun wrote:


Honestly I love Mega Nobs, nobs, Killa Kans, and Deff Dreads in general, so this is all fine.

Me too. I'll start with Tin 'Eadz for sure Now, if only we could start with 6+ HS, 3-4 HQs and 18 CPs....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

And remember the kff change

The KFF seems massive on paper, and in 8th it probably could have been, but with very limited HQ choices that big mek has a lot of competition and other KFF sources still affect only shooting. We also don't know if the big mek with KFF will be cheap enough to be good with the new points hikes.

 Blackie wrote:

tulun wrote:


Honestly I love Mega Nobs, nobs, Killa Kans, and Deff Dreads in general, so this is all fine.

Me too. I'll start with Tin 'Eadz for sure Now, if only we could start with 6+ HS, 3-4 HQs and 18 CPs....

You can. Take a brigade. Or just accept you’ll only have 15 CP over the game, and take two battalions. That’s better than that army would have this edition anyway.

I honestly think patrols will cost 1 CP, which will give us those precious extra HQs we need.

 Blackie wrote:

tulun wrote:


Honestly I love Mega Nobs, nobs, Killa Kans, and Deff Dreads in general, so this is all fine.

Me too. I'll start with Tin 'Eadz for sure Now, if only we could start with 6+ HS, 3-4 HQs and 18 CPs....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

And remember the kff change

The KFF seems massive on paper, and in 8th it probably could have been, but with very limited HQ choices that big mek has a lot of competition and other KFF sources still affect only shooting. We also don't know if the big mek with KFF will be cheap enough to be good with the new points hikes.

Since we have no faq yet and the kff has substantial changed including points. Im assuming the points are intended right now. So I don’t foresee a price hike on a book released 3 months before a new edition. Plus I’m assuming the new kff is going to be universal. These were to drastic of a change to just assume it’s all a misprint

tulun wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tulun wrote:


Honestly I love Mega Nobs, nobs, Killa Kans, and Deff Dreads in general, so this is all fine.

Me too. I'll start with Tin 'Eadz for sure Now, if only we could start with 6+ HS, 3-4 HQs and 18 CPs....

You can. Take a brigade. Or just accept you’ll only have 15 CP over the game, and take two battalions. That’s better than that army would have this edition anyway.

I honestly think patrols will cost 1 CP, which will give us those precious extra HQs we need.

No, I can't. Brigade means lots of tax units and combined with the new points hikes it won't be a reasonable option. Two battallions means 12 CPs top of turn 3, 13 with the Follow me Ladz! trait, which is definitely not enough. At the end of the edition I used to go 3x battallion along with that trait, so 19 CPs, 6 cheap and effective HQs and more than 3 HS. 18-19 CPs are easily burned in 3 turns at most in competitive games.

Adding detachments costs CPs and if patrols were really CPs that could help, if they come with a higher CPs cost they won't be particularly appealing. Of course I'll wait all the rules and the new points values to come out before starting listbuilding but the more new rules I see the more I think of going with a spearhead and lots of walkers, mek gunz, tanks, buggies, meganobz.... maybe with no troops at all, unless min squads of gretchins become useful to score secondaries.

 DrGiggles wrote:

tulun wrote:
So cover won’t be saving Orks. Still favours elite armies.

Sigh.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/11/terrain-rules-and-line-of-sightgw-homepage-post-1/

I think 'obscuring' will help quite a bit on boards with a good amount of ruins on them (assuming the large ruins sit in the middle of the board).

Not sure what to make of the 'heavy cover' rule though. Is it supposed to simulate fighting in tight corridors/thick wooded areas?

Except if you even touch terrain area you are shot freely even if physically can't be seen.

Ironic. Players in 8th made rule so you can"t be seen even if physically seen. Gw makes opposite.

And triumph i just got painted got nerfed. 18w so obscured pieces don't block los to it period. Gorkanaut ditto can be seen freely. In 8th having it hidden to atleast some enemies was standard


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tulun wrote:


Honestly I love Mega Nobs, nobs, Killa Kans, and Deff Dreads in general, so this is all fine.

Me too. I'll start with Tin 'Eadz for sure Now, if only we could start with 6+ HS, 3-4 HQs and 18 CPs....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

And remember the kff change

The KFF seems massive on paper, and in 8th it probably could have been, but with very limited HQ choices that big mek has a lot of competition and other KFF sources still affect only shooting. We also don't know if the big mek with KFF will be cheap enough to be good with the new points hikes.

Since we have no faq yet and the kff has substantial changed including points. Im assuming the points are intended right now. So I don’t foresee a price hike on a book released 3 months before a new edition. Plus I’m assuming the new kff is going to be universal. These were to drastic of a change to just assume it’s all a misprint

It was written for 8th. Vlrtually verything in 9th will be going up. Base measure changes so only reason 9th ed price doesn't change would be if 8th ed was seriously overpriced

Honestly, 30 boyz is physicaly the biggest unit in w40k? 30x32mm bases of green badasses. How can we complain, we can' t hide them?