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.

That Cut Them Down strat is total gak. You need 12 models to be within engagement range (1 in ch of a model of yours 1 inch from enemy model) to inflict 2 MW on average.
Things really do look grim for hordes if that is the sort of stuff Hordes get to offset all the nerfs they are receiving...

Monsters and Vehicules won't need to disengage anymore from what we heard, and even if they do... 2-3 MW they get ? If you spend a CP ??

If you charge troops, well troops can suffer a few MW to disengage, no question.

THAT STRAT SHOULD BE 0 CP !! Sorry, i'll eat a chill pill right now

 Eldarsif wrote:

And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.

I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.

I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.

I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.

I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.

We could see AoS 3" engagement range so weapon ranges make more sense.

Huh, interesting, they changed the points limit table



So 1500pts gives you the same amount of CP as 2000pts.
Good to know.

CP generation revealed

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.

I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.

I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.

I wonder if engagement range will vary per unit and not just per base size?

Immediate question- since knights don't do normal detachments, if your building a mono-knight army, how many points are you losing just to do so.

at least people were correct in stating there's command regen per turn. and even if it wont help my current idea, the command refund for some first detachments is nice..

LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.

dumb_numpty wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.

I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.

I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.

I wonder if engagement range will vary per unit and not just per base size?

Could be. Adding in like a reach stat or something. Would take a lot of work to designate which units get what.

I can't help but notice that this rule kind of...doesn't fix the fall back problem with the units that suffer most from that, though. You know, it helps supercheap hordes a lot, but really doens't help, like, Terminators, Custodes, all those super-expensive units that don't have the base smallness and numbers to tripoint and you're the most likely to want to pull the ol' fall back and shoot in the face with plasma trick on.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.

Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.

Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.

I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)

Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.

And complaining about a 2ppm shift vs a 4ppm one only highlights how people will bitch about anything. Of course the percentage is going to look more out of wack when you look at single digits moving vs double digits going up in points.

Right now 15 Intercessors (3 units with 5 models each) is 240 points. In 9th that starts at 300 points. That's a loss of 60 points. 3x10 cultists is currently 120 points. In 9th that's going up to 180 which also loses 60 points. Percentage wise it looks worse for the cultists, but for the armies as a whole 60 points of Primaris is a bigger chunk out of an army in terms of moving and killing than 60 points of cultists would be.

That’s not how math works, 60 points are 60 points, more importantly the 300 points of intercessors will murder with no problem the 300 points of cultists.

The point was the 60 points for marines is a larger opportunity cost than it is for the cultists. It also shows that while the individual point cost is wildly different, the units both took the same points hike.

By that logic armies with better (read: overpowered/undercosted) units should get smaller increases because they could buy better units with those points. Good luck balancing your game that way.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.

Just wait til you see Shoot Them With Your Guns!

omg if cut them down is 'HERE ye GOeZ hordes and CC players, BUFFFS loolz'

i'll never waste a cp on this, their 30 boyz example is silly. 1. combat has happend already, when are there ever 30 boyz left? the previous combat killed 2-5 say, overwatch killed a couple on the way in and other shooting prob killed some. Plus its hard to prob even get the rest engaged.

So you typically have in the best circumstances 15-20 of your 30 ever engaged and 1cp for 2-4 MW ... pffft who cares. Its no deterrent for a unit to leave combat (esp vs orks say) so his mates can blast them off the board.

Cut them down could be a universal rule, that'd be something.

If there's some real lenient wording on engagement range then I could see it being used on a retreating character who survived something he shouldn't have/was tagged previously.

Barring that, this really could've been a 0CP strat. Getting to use it for free once per round when an opponent retreats seems fair IMO.

The new building system and points changes are making planning armies hard right now. Had a dual battalion Harlequin army on my desk but now I know I don't need that (or is not desirable) and may want to change my troupe weapon loadout to fit points. Damn, was hoping to get some paint on those dudes.

 Latro_ wrote:
Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.

The standard GW over-balance.

Problem: 'Blast' weapons (ie. 1D6 shot weapons, generally, like Battlecannons, Frag Missiles, etc.) aren't very good. They certainly aren't worth their points.
Solution: Make blast weapons get all their hits vs bit units. Now they are worth their points.
Overbalance: They're more effective! Better put their points up.

But you just made them worth their points... *sigh*

the_scotsman wrote:
Cut them down could be a universal rule, that'd be something.

I'm guessing that we are going to an AoS style everything in 3 inches rule for CC, which actually makes the 30 boys make more sense, but yeah for most MSU's or less it's probably going to be a what strategums, never played.

the_scotsman wrote:
Cut them down could be a universal rule, that'd be something.

It's one of the new core strats everyone can use.

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Cut them down could be a universal rule, that'd be something.

I'm guessing that we are going to an AoS style everything in 3 inches rule for CC, which actually makes the 30 boys make more sense, but yeah for most MSU's or less it's probably going to be a what strategums, never played.

That would be a hefty buff for melee stuff.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.

There's a problem with the rules for Falling Back. Units just walk away from combat, and the melee unit gets slaughtered by shooting. We should 100% fix this with a 1CP strat that causes a tiny amount of mortal wounds. That'll solve everything!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.

The standard GW over-balance.

Problem: 'Blast' weapons (ie. 1D6 shot weapons, generally, like Battlecannons, Frag Missiles, etc.) aren't very good. They certainly aren't worth their points.
Solution: Make blast weapons get all their hits vs bit units. Now they are worth their points.
Overbalance: They're more effective! Better put their points up.

But you just made them worth their points... *sigh*

Well technically some *cough* Astramilicheese *cough* could do with paying more as they get twice the shooting frim each weapon, unfortunately I suspect your 100% correct and they will remain overcosted to crazy for everyone else.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.

There's a problem with the rules for Falling Back. Units just walk away from combat, and the melee unit gets slaughtered by shooting. We should 100% fix this with a 2CP strat that causes a tiny amount of mortal wounds. That'll solve everything!

I was honestly hoping for a melee version of Overwatch.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's one of the new core strats everyone can use.

We know. He meant universal as just being part of the rules, not a strat.

In the feed did they mention if it was only actualy Warlords who give you a refund or also those with Warlord traits from various strats?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.

The standard GW over-balance.

Problem: 'Blast' weapons (ie. 1D6 shot weapons, generally, like Battlecannons, Frag Missiles, etc.) aren't very good. They certainly aren't worth their points.
Solution: Make blast weapons get all their hits vs bit units. Now they are worth their points.
Overbalance: They're more effective! Better put their points up.

But you just made them worth their points... *sigh*

We haven't seen the points yet...

 Mr Morden wrote:
In the feed did they mention if it was only actualy Warlords who give you a refund or also those with Warlord traits from various strats?

They said "Your warlord". I would presume that's only the 1 dude who is officially "the one warlord" and not extra duders you add.

 Mr Morden wrote:
In the feed did they mention if it was only actualy Warlords who give you a refund or also those with Warlord traits from various strats?

Nothing about traits or strats. The core rules for a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade refund you their cost if your WL is part of that detachment.
I expect dark eldar will have a special rule that it'll be 'any character' etc and other armies will play around with this via the likes of WL traits etc

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.

First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?

Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.

Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.

40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.

This has to be the worst cost to value assessment I have ever read.

You just compared two things of equal cost and claimed the one that provides less value is somehow more effective because the other unit isn't using it's advantage to do a similar role.

Heres a better way to look at your argument here.

You can buy one of two watches.
Both are $100.00 but one is just a time piece while the other is also a dive rated water proof watch.
According to your logic the generic watch is better value because on land the dive watch would be wasting it's dive capability.
Sorry, but I'll always take the dive watch, even if I never go into the water. Because at least I have the capability and it costs me nothing more.

100 points of cultists is not better then 100 points of intercessors. Your still spending 100 points either way, regardless of use. We don't need to worry about opportunity cost in rules because we have a better more measurable standard. Points. And the points tell me that the intercessor is more durable, requires no baby sitting and also has more offensive potential. You defeated your own argument.

BTW the cultists can't be on more then one objective either, they come in minimum units of 10. That means 16 or 17 of them all need to be in the one unit and the leak already told us a unit can only hold one objective.

Best case you can make is that MAYBE and HOPEFULLY this isn't indicative of anything else and it's an edge case. But even if so, what a terrible example to lead a marketing campaign with out of hundreds of data slates.

 Mr Morden wrote:
In the feed did they mention if it was only actualy Warlords who give you a refund or also those with Warlord traits from various strats?

The warlord is your actual warlord, as per the picture he makes that detachment effectively free if it's a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade. Anything else doesn't get refunded.
Unfortunately unless they have put a massive CP cost on the second codex, which Doesn't sound like it when adding a Knight costs 1-2 CP most 2 faction soups can still gain out of this system

Well done GW soup is truly no longer gaining you CP advantages

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.

There's a problem with the rules for Falling Back. Units just walk away from combat, and the melee unit gets slaughtered by shooting. We should 100% fix this with a 2CP strat that causes a tiny amount of mortal wounds. That'll solve everything!

I was honestly hoping for a melee version of Overwatch.

Well you got it, but it costs 1cp, and you can only do it once per turn. Dang. Glad I play Night Lords.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's one of the new core strats everyone can use.

We know. He meant universal as just being part of the rules, not a strat.

I would prefer (If we are choosing to stick with the current time consuming method of shooting overwatch) a rule that just...lets your melee units in Engagement Range attack again, hitting on 6s, if a unit falls back from them.

it is so, so bizarre to me that we're utterly married to rolling EVERY SINGLE DIE you have to roll to make a shooting attack every time someone even attempts to charge, but we get this weird shortcut method that, once again, uses Mortal Wounds to make horde units feel more elite than elite units on a once-per-game stratagem.

Miracle Dice and the new Cut them down Strat could be situationaly useful