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.

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Marines have trouble breathing. This is a big problem.

Google translate is weird.

 Darkseid wrote:
Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Wait for the errata.

The chainsword thing is gonna be quite interesting for the people who used the Reivers' knives in lieu of a chainsword for whatever purposes.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
If they remain free that could be a boost to many units. Combi-bolter chosen keep looking better and better.

Careful now. There's every chance in the world they'll forget about Chaos Marines, or make this a Primaris only thing.

Eldarain wrote:I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Good points. I guess I better get my salt ready just in case.

Darkseid wrote:Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

In the hands of chaos terminators?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

It's almost as if trying to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to a far more complex and nuanced problem just creates newer, different problems.

That's why they should've let modifiers still stack and just keep natural 6s always hitting.

Was it ever mentioned if the CP increased with every detachment taken or is it just a flat cost?

 Darkseid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Having S+1 and that's it!

I got a simple solution for people who worry that troops will not be taken in 9th ed.

Just make a rule that each character must be attached to One unit of troop. You want three characters, you need three units of troops. And each detachment must have at least one commander (ie character).

So, if we assume three detachments is the standard taken for a 2000 point game, then that means at least 3 characters and 3 troops.

So, unless you want to play with minimum heroes ... this will force you to take troops if you want to bring more heroes.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.

9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.

We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?

For people who should know that there is a surprising about of whinging about this and that and how they'll cpearly break the game. Complaints that are clearly made from a purely 8th ed standpoint instead of considering there is a boatload of changes we don't even know yet, much less the specifics of the changes we do know.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Having S+1 and that's it!

IMHO chain axes should be S+1 and an extra attack, while chainswords are -1 AP and an extra attack, it's a choice between greater power or greater armor pen

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Having S+1 and that's it!

+1S vs 1 free attack is an interesting balance.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Having S+1 and that's it!

+1S vs 1 free attack is an interesting balance.

Not really with the current wounding chart but better than nothing.

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Having S+1 and that's it!

IMHO chain axes should be S+1 and an extra attack, while chainswords are -1 AP and an extra attack, it's a choice between greater power or greater armor pen

If they do this, I hope all power weapons give an extra attack as well. In fact, I think all special melee weapons that cost points should come with at least a +1 attack standard. Melee weapons should be good when you actually get to use them. Finally getting into combat just to fluff your powerfist attacks is lame.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Having S+1 and that's it!

+1S vs 1 free attack is an interesting balance.

Not really with the current wounding chart but better than nothing.

True, but we don't know that is staying exactly the same or not. That is, if they don't just make the Chainaxe a Chainsword with +1S.

Just had a thought to boot: what does this mean for things like Ragnar's Chainsword or the Teeth of Terra? Will they be seeing a slight rules bump too?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

I'm not assuming they don't lose their edge the second you turn from the Emperor until confirmed. Apparently writing things down makes you better at shooting bolters than warring in hell with them for millennia.

Also, where does that leave the chainaxes at?

Having S+1 and that's it!

+1S vs 1 free attack is an interesting balance.

With a couple exceptions, I'm pretty sure the extra attack is largely superior.

The extra attack would have been superior in most instances before we got 8th's shoddy To Wound chart. With 8th Ed's chart, it is absolutely the superior option.

 Eldarain wrote:

Power level? They must anticipate we'll just drop the last guy if it's a set number

So 5 orks just as easy to hit as 30 and easier than 5 terminators. Good job!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So building a list requires CP, but your CP total requires knowing the mission and table size. How can one just build a list for an event or even for casual play if you don't know what mission you're playing and need CP to make the damned list?

You know cp you will have by knowing points you have to use. How many casual play list you make without knowing are you making 1000, 1500 or 2000 pts game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Infantry squads only being useful for sitting around and doing nothing is neither engaging, nor fun. Having them only be useful for taking objectives is not the way to make them be taken. They should have a defensive and offensive place on the battlefield, whether that be holding a trench line, or executing a surprise advance on the flank.

No one is going to take units that merely exist to sit there in a predefined location, and get shot so the bigger models get to look cool.

Atm nobody gets them to do anything but bubblewrap and cp. First one seems to be growing in importance and 2nd is neither engaging nor fun as you said

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The extra attack would have been superior in most instances before we got 8th's shoddy To Wound chart. With 8th Ed's chart, it is absolutely the superior option.

You sure about that?
It doesn't matter at all for T3, 6, 7, or 10, so the extra attack will always be superior against guard or eldar (and assorted little guys)

For T4 (the most common of the remaining T scores)
3 S5 attacks average 1.31 wounds
4 S4 attacks average 1.32 wounds
[before armor in both cases, but the we're assuming the save is the same]

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't limiting minuses to hit at -1 benefit meq shooting more than lower BS factions? The worst an intercessor will ever hit on will be a 4+, whereas orks will need a 6+, wouldn't making everything hit on a 6 with maybe a -2 cap on modifiers make more sense? It sounds like the way cover benefits marine armour saves more than geq units all over again.

And if everyone gets the same starting cp doesn't that benefit knights? There must be a cp cost to certain detachments.

Uuh and why mono knights shouldn't be helped? Seeing they are atm underpowered(look at their winrate).

And if they soup they lose cp's getting to where they now were with cp batteries.

Underpowered faction getting buff. Oh the horror!

0.01? That's quite the margin.

tneva82 wrote:
You know cp you will have by knowing points you have to use. How many casual play list you make without knowing are you making 1000, 1500 or 2000 pts game?

Didn't they also say they can come from missions as well?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.

9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.

We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?

Yes they said that. And that has come out every time codexes have been redone.

You really think ork codex was written 9th ed in mind? Knights? Tyranids? Death guard?

Either they release errata or they would be even more restricted what they can change.

It's errata, no meaningful changes or all codexes invalidated ala the 8th. Take your pick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
0.01? That's quite the margin.

tneva82 wrote:
You know cp you will have by knowing points you have to use. How many casual play list you make without knowing are you making 1000, 1500 or 2000 pts game?

Didn't they also say they can come from missions as well?

One issue over the course of 8th is that some armies had easy access to CP and others don't, so we're leveling the playing field. Command Points are now linked to the game size. Start with the same number of Command Points.


4 Army Sizes: Combat Patrol, Onslaught, Strike Force, Incursion

Game size

Btw regarding missions those vary between game sizes. No playing scenarios suited to 2k with 500 armies

tneva82 wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Infantry squads only being useful for sitting around and doing nothing is neither engaging, nor fun. Having them only be useful for taking objectives is not the way to make them be taken. They should have a defensive and offensive place on the battlefield, whether that be holding a trench line, or executing a surprise advance on the flank.

No one is going to take units that merely exist to sit there in a predefined location, and get shot so the bigger models get to look cool.

Atm nobody gets them to do anything but bubblewrap and cp. First one seems to be growing in importance and 2nd is neither engaging nor fun as you said

Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.

Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.

Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.

In terms of role if anything 9th increases it. cp battery isn't fun and engaging role. Board control meanwhile is role. You can't expect cheap troop to be murder machine but with reserve changes unless you enjoy more stuff(no need for bespoken rule to go to reserve) appearing out of reserves and charge you then you need board control.

Sure it's nice to have unit of dark reapers of doom. What they enjoy finding 10 assault interceptors in their face charging before they get to shoot? Sure you donjt want some cheap troops?

OK, I understand speculation at this point, but outright crying that the game (which you haven't seen) is broken is a tad early, don't you think?

We clearly don't know how the to hit modifiers work overall. Perhaps only the target player caps out at -1 max. So if you move with a hvy weapon, and are targeting a flier...it's still -2, we just don't know. We do know that you can't be a Eldar flier, using Alaitoc and Lightning Fast Reactions trying to a -3 to hit. I think surely GW would understand that a moving hvy weapon should not hit a flier the same as a stationary one, so there has to be some other mechanic, who knows?

As for Troop tax.....good riddance. All troops are not created equal and it was dumb that the lower mentality horde would always have these strategems to use over elite armies. Hopefully the new mechanic doesn't skew things too far the other way. I do know my Ravenwing can gladly leave those friggin' scouts at home now...yay.

I'm optimistic for the new edition, but I also expect there to be some flaws, that's just being realistic. And since I fully expect it to hit sometime in July, we won;t have too long to wait.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.

Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.

That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.

This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).

tneva82 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:I think the knee jerking needs to ease up a hit. You're going to spill you drinks at this rate.

9th is getting a Day 1 errata and we don't know how that'll alter the game so the doom and gloom should be stowed until then.

We already know that? Is nothing right day one nowadays?

Yes they said that. And that has come out every time codexes have been redone.

You really think ork codex was written 9th ed in mind? Knights? Tyranids? Death guard?

Either they release errata or they would be even more restricted what they can change.

It's errata, no meaningful changes or all codexes invalidated ala the 8th. Take your pick.

You're either or choice is invalid for a couple of reasons: first 9th was written with the 8th ed rules in mind, which is something people keep screwing up since it means they didn't write the edition then release codexes written as a sort of foot in both edition mess. Secondly the game is a transitional bump like 6th to 7th, not 7th to 8th. That means consolidating the changes, improving on things the community provided feedback for over the last three years, and that means this idea that the Chicken-Little-ing over the edition change is unnecessary, as it always is.

We are seeing core mechanic changes, which will drastically shake up the meta, and we're seeing points cost changes that'll rebalance the game to better match that meta. We also know we're going to see some wargear changes as the Astartes Chainsword is bringing a statline change to the chainswords we all know and love.

So there are drastic changes coming, but they don't invalidate the codexes we have. They build on them and rebalance them so they remain relevant (if not make them more relevant) until their turn for a new codex comes around.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.

Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.

That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.

This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).

Infantry provide multiple roles other than waiting around for everyone else to do everything

They can protect heavier elements from receiving fire from unsuspecting angles, provide reconnaissance and spotting for other assets. Can defend emplacements and operate in dense environments that are not suited to tanks and larger assets. They are smaller targets and thus can be utilized to infiltrate behind enemy lines, destroying vital supply lines and causing disarray along the front.

I can easily point to the Long rang reconnaissance patrols of Vietnam, Merrill's marauders, the Chindits, and the paratroopers of ww2 (which on the battlefield itself were nothing more than infantry. They didn't deep strike into combat).

 bullyboy wrote:
OK, I understand speculation at this point, but outright crying that the game (which you haven't seen) is broken is a tad early, don't you think?

We clearly don't know how the to hit modifiers work overall. Perhaps only the target player caps out at -1 max. So if you move with a hvy weapon, and are targeting a flier...it's still -2, we just don't know. We do know that you can't be a Eldar flier, using Alaitoc and Lightning Fast Reactions trying to a -3 to hit. I think surely GW would understand that a moving hvy weapon should not hit a flier the same as a stationary one, so there has to be some other mechanic, who knows?

As for Troop tax.....good riddance. All troops are not created equal and it was dumb that the lower mentality horde would always have these strategems to use over elite armies. Hopefully the new mechanic doesn't skew things too far the other way. I do know my Ravenwing can gladly leave those friggin' scouts at home now...yay.

I'm optimistic for the new edition, but I also expect there to be some flaws, that's just being realistic. And since I fully expect it to hit sometime in July, we won;t have too long to wait.

I expect us to start seeing deeper dives into the new edition, if not the free rules, starting June 1st.

That said, the need for the internet to declare the sky is falling everytime GW even breathes is a bit tiresome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Thats kinda the point I'm making. No one is going to take infantry "for objectives", because that's boring and not fun.

Give infantry a role to fill and something to do. Otherwise people aren't going to take them, and if they do it will only be out of sheer necessity.

That's literally what infantry do though. They hold the ground your better stuff has taken.

This has been true since as early as WW1 when you couldn't send infantry across no man's land without the support of your heavy support units (machine guns and artillery).

Infantry provide multiple roles other than waiting around for everyone else to do everything

They can protect heavier elements from receiving fire from unsuspecting angles, provide reconnaissance and spotting for other assets. Can defend emplacements and operate in dense environments that are not suited to tanks and larger assets. They are smaller targets and thus can be utilized to infiltrate behind enemy lines, destroying vital supply lines and causing disarray along the front.

I can easily point to the Long rang reconnaissance patrols of Vietnam, Merrill's marauders, the Chindits, and the paratroopers of ww2 (which on the battlefield itself were nothing more than infantry. They didn't deep strike into combat).

Troops in 40k had priority for controlling objectives (something I see coming back) and in some cases were the only thing that could score objectives. In modern editions they also serve as ways to defend your harder hitting elements and chip damage heavier targets as the game goes on.

GW has always had trouble making troops "feel" as relevant as they said they were, but as someone who is looking at Templars again, why wouldn't I want Crusader Squads? They can be built for melee, ranged and even heavy support elements.

 bullyboy wrote:
OK, I understand speculation at this point, but outright crying that the game (which you haven't seen) is broken is a tad early, don't you think?

We clearly don't know how the to hit modifiers work overall. Perhaps only the target player caps out at -1 max. So if you move with a hvy weapon, and are targeting a flier...it's still -2, we just don't know. We do know that you can't be a Eldar flier, using Alaitoc and Lightning Fast Reactions trying to a -3 to hit. I think surely GW would understand that a moving hvy weapon should not hit a flier the same as a stationary one, so there has to be some other mechanic, who knows?

As for Troop tax.....good riddance. All troops are not created equal and it was dumb that the lower mentality horde would always have these strategems to use over elite armies. Hopefully the new mechanic doesn't skew things too far the other way. I do know my Ravenwing can gladly leave those friggin' scouts at home now...yay.

I'm optimistic for the new edition, but I also expect there to be some flaws, that's just being realistic. And since I fully expect it to hit sometime in July, we won;t have too long to wait.

Dude, this is Dakka. Crying about the game is pretty much the foundation that this community is built on. Everyone's army got screwed, but also everyone's army is just as fine if not OP- if a large portion of this site is to be believed.

Also, my actual response- Last time 8th was announced about this time of year, rules were available early June, maybe mid-June. I just remember reading the rulebook on the plan going home for 4th of July.

 AndrewC wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Pretty sure they said detachments cost CP in the live stream.

They did for sure in the original stream.

This scares me. I play Tau, my only consistently performing unit is the commander. So on the face of it I now need to spend CP to get additional commanders? A steaming pile of rubbish yes I know that we dont have all the info but I'm not hopeful.

Andrew

At the least, the 1/Detatchment restriction will stay in place but I wouldn't be shocked to see a 1/army installed. A similar restriction will likely hit the Space Marine Captain and several other "Grand command" types.

Likely, not assured.

GW has a certain look and feel to their forces that they want respected, and things like "There's only one Chapter Master" or "There's only one Commander" are in that mix.

But we won't know for certain for a while yet.

For now, assume the rules in place remain in place.