40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

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.

**ClockworkZion**

Red Corsair wrote:
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.

Opportunity cost means those points weigh out differently for the units involved.

**Shadenuat**

Patrol is a funny one if it gives same CP. You only need 1 HQ and 1 Troops, and you get enough slots to fill army with some tanks, flyers, transports, etc.

And while before I thought there's not enough CP, now 12 CP + 1/turn on 1500, everyone is the Guard.

**PiñaColada**

the_scotsman wrote:
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.

Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

tneva82 wrote:
lol. People always go "just wait" and 99% times just wait results in "just wait" group being proven wrong, again.

If you don't wait you run some chance of being angry for no reason, or of being angry for the wrong reasons. If you wait until you get the full picture, you can be sure to be angry 100% for the right reasons

.

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

If this happens, the interaction with the inferno pistol may be weird. Possible "You can only go with 3" of an enemy model during the assault phase" meaning you cannot go into melta range with the inferno pistol, except if you charged or were charged on a previous turn.
Though maybe they'll errata it specifically?

I'm currently cautiously optimistic here. What we've seen seems nice, and I usually am not very confident in GW, but when I look just below my computer screen, I see some PLASTIC SISTERS OF BATTLE all around my desk, so who knows? Who the frozen over hell knows what the future is made of???

**BoomWolf**

One thing I wondr about is the changes to moral.
We don't know them yet (we know there ARE changes though), and they might make larger units more valuable.

Also, possibly the value of the lower-cap of the unit (60 for cultists, 100 for intercessors) might be of some value for some reason?
Seeing today's stratagem, higher model count does more with it, and in general we know starts (and buffs in general) tends to be more impactful the higher the model count of the target unit. it is possible that some yet-unknown combination of changes to the core rules make sheer body-count be more valuable than it used to be.

Equally possible cultists are getting screwed over, again. nobody would be shocked.

**the_scotsman**

PiñaColada wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
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.

Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog

Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Mr Morden wrote:
Miracle Dice and the new Cut them down Strat could be situationaly useful

Unless it has been errata'd, it is not part of the specific case listed where you can use an act of faith. Unless I missed something?

**PiñaColada**

the_scotsman wrote:

Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?

I'd be okay with a significant overhaul to overwatch personally and would rather them go that route than basically giving another type of "overwatch" from CC retreating. Overwatch might just become a strat like this one as well. At the very least I hope they remove rerolls from overwatch to speed it up

**ClockworkZion**

the_scotsman wrote:
PiñaColada wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
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.

Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog

Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?

A thought crossed my mind: overwatch might also be a stratagem.

**Sunny Side Up**

Well, I hope overwatch becomes a 1 CP stratagem, roll a single D6 per model, do a MW on 6.

But I kinda doubt it.

The idea was there, but they don't seem willing to remove the shooting-skew.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?

**the_scotsman**

ClockworkZion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
PiñaColada wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
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.

Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog

Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?

A thought crossed my mind: overwatch might also be a stratagem.

I would love the hell out of that.

**tneva82**

Latro_ wrote:
The pts are not going to be the same. 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.

edit: actully i think that was mentioned in yesterdays stream

Yes. And so far point changes have favoured marines. Marine bias in gw is damn strong atm

**PiñaColada**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?

And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!

**ClockworkZion**

PiñaColada wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?

And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!

The ability to shoot obscured models maybe?

**Abadabadoobaddon**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
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.

Opportunity cost means those points weigh out differently for the units involved.

Opportunity cost means I give up one thing in order have some other mutually exclusive thing. I can't swap my cultists for intercessors, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.

Your argument basically boils down to this:

Armies that have better units should pay less for them because their pts are worth more than armies with worse units.

I hope we can all see why this is wrong on its face. My fear is that someone in the design studio decided this reasoning was sound.

**tneva82**

Not Online!!! wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

I'm not declaring that All Is Lost and the meta will 100% still be marine-dominated, but I am getting heavy flashbacks to 8th, when they steadily revealed the new blasts, the new fall back rules, the new morale system, Overwatch rules, and the part of the community that liked melee was asking

"uh, hey GW, how does melee work? How do you melee? GW?"

and their only answer was "Don't worry about it, melee will be great, 8th will be the best edition for melee ever, pinky swear!"

"So did you fix the issues like random charge rolls then? Is that how melee is fixed?"

"Youll have to read the full rules to find out!!!! we can't spoil everything for you. Now, let's talk about how flamers autohit on overwatch scorin their full effectiveness...and how units can interrupt to fight back..and how you can shoot in melee with pistols but not on the turn you charge..."

Ahh so that's were my Déja-vu feeling was coming from.
I hope it's not the case but still.
that is eeeeerrily similar.

Yeah and 99% times it's spot on how it looks at first. Gw doesn'' make things complex. Simple game and effects on game balance easy to see even for elementary school kid

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

ClockworkZion wrote:
PiñaColada wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?

And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!

The ability to shoot obscured models maybe?

Yeah, those would be cool additions!
I don't think it was linked, article on the new art:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/the-art-of-new40k/
I quite like the "page furniture" at the bottom. Some of them do evoke a big H.R. Giger's work to me, and I'd be pretty interested in what Giger would have done with 40k. Sadly we'll never know, RIP.

**Mr Morden**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Miracle Dice and the new Cut them down Strat could be situationaly useful

Unless it has been errata'd, it is not part of the specific case listed where you can use an act of faith. Unless I missed something?

Ahh good point.....but if Overwatch is also a Strat maybe you will

**the_scotsman**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
PiñaColada wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?

And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!

The ability to shoot obscured models maybe?

Yeah, those would be cool additions!
I don't think it was linked, article on the new art:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/the-art-of-new40k/
I quite like the "page furniture" at the bottom. Some of them do evoke a big H.R. Giger's work to me, and I'd be pretty interested in what Giger would have done with 40k. Sadly we'll never know, RIP.

Damn! That's pretty cool! I was skeptical at the first image, but my face was kind of like that Vince Mcmahon meme as I scrolled down.

**tneva82**

Ice_can wrote:
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.

Of course depending on unit size first salvo can drop the horde status and back to d6 shots

**the_scotsman**

Haha, I just realized the weird alien orb thingy from Space Marine is in that "Assorted Xenos Threats" art piece.

Top left corner. Cute easer egg/nod.

**tneva82**

Mr Morden wrote:
Miracle Dice and the new Cut them down Strat could be situationaly useful

Unless they faq it md doesn't work on it. Md has list of stuff you can use it for.

**Rydria**

Cut theme down seems awful as a stratagem, should have been just a rule to add some minor risk to falling back. It doesn't even really add a deterrent for fleeing from singular powerful models.

**ClockworkZion**

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Opportunity cost means I give up one thing in order have some other mutually exclusive thing. I can't swap my cultists for intercessors, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.

Your argument basically boils down to this:

Armies that have better units should pay less for them because their pts are worth more than armies with worse units.

I hope we can all see why this is wrong on its face. My fear is that someone in the design studio decided this reasoning was sound.

That's not what I was trying to say at all. I was saying a points hike impacts an elite army more than a horde army. But go on and bang that gong I guess.

**Red Corsair**

small_gods wrote:
Nah Man Pichu wrote:
It's almost like the internet's full of people determined to be angry/miserable!

It's not like dakka to be overwhelming negative about a game that many people enjoy is it?

Yet here you both are, funny that.

**Sotahullu**

Article on new art was put up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/the-art-of-new40k/#gallery-7

Spoiler:

**ClockworkZion**

Huh. From B&C:

So, this was just posted in a discord I'm in, from a Playester, this was in response to someone saying that the detachment's taking away points puts Tau in a tough spot with their 1 commander per detachment rule:

"don’t worry. Other factions will find themselves in the same predicament msn-wink.gif.
The one it is the weirdest for is D.eldar Kabal because they only have Arcons so they get locked into two arcons or running a mixed list.
So excited they finally put this one out there. Finally an end to soup lol"

Take it with a grain of salt, but this is the same playtester I've mentioned before who spoke about the Judicar's name before it was officially revealed, as well as the rules for it.

Guess spamming Smash Captains might be DOA?

**Darsath**

Red Corsair wrote:
small_gods wrote:
Nah Man Pichu wrote:
It's almost like the internet's full of people determined to be angry/miserable!

It's not like dakka to be overwhelming negative about a game that many people enjoy is it?

Yet here you both are, funny that.

Avoid the trolls, man. Let's keep on topic.

**Smellingsalts**

I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.