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.

Overwatch doesn't cost CP.

To make Cut Them Down get the same value as the standard "1CP to do D3 MW when X" stratagem, you'd need to have 12 models within 1" of the unit. That's virtually impossible.

It's hot garbage of a stratagem. One of the worst stratagems in the game. That doesn't mean you can't come up with some weird situation it might be worth doing, but it utterly fails at its stated purpose. The only time you're going to see people using it is to fish for MW to kill a retreating character with a single wound left or something like that. The idea that it punishes people for falling back generally is a complete joke.

With the limitation of only models within 1", it would need to do MWs on a 4+ to be priced to move.

Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...

yukishiro1 wrote:
Overwatch doesn't cost CP.

To make Cut Them Down get the same value as the standard "1CP to do D3 MW when X" stratagem, you'd need to have 12 models within 1" of the unit. That's virtually impossible.

It's hot garbage of a stratagem. One of the worst stratagems in the game. That doesn't mean you can't come up with some weird situation it might be worth doing, but it utterly fails at its stated purpose. The only time you're going to see people using it is to fish for MW to kill a retreating character with a single wound left or something like that. The idea that it punishes people for falling back generally is a complete joke.

With the limitation of only models within 1", it would need to do MWs on a 4+ to be priced to move.

Or just, I don't know, not use the stupid fething MW mechanic in the first place? MWs make sense in really only the most specific rule circumstances and they make most things just laughably weird. Why the flying heck is it as danegerous to run away from a single grot as it is to run away from a warlord titan?

 JNAProductions wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ok? And knights are better at shooting tanks than guardsmen?

A Nob is 27 points with a Power Klaw, Choppa, and Stikkbombs.

If we assume that being in two bodies of T4 4+ W2 each is worth the same as one body of T5 2+ W4 (which it isn't, but whatever) then 2 Nobs is just 2 points more than a Hurricane Bolter Assault Centurion. Close enough for government work.

The two Nobs have 6 attacks.
3 hits.
2 wounds.
5/3 failed saves.
10/3 damage, or 3.33

A single Centurion has 3 attacks (4 on the charge, but we'll ignore that)
2 hits
4/3 wounds
4/3 failed saves
4 damage, or 4.00

So, a single Centurion is worth more than two Nobs in close combat against their favored targets. Technically the Nob has a Choppa, which adds about .07 points of damage per nob, but that's paltry. The Centurion ALSO has 12 shots that hit on 3s. And two flamers. And is more durable.

Do you not see the issue?

So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?

I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doctor-boom wrote:
Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...

No you can't. In fact the rule specifically says the opposite. I don't know how you read it that way.

Doctor-boom wrote:
Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...

Isnt' that the opposite of the case though? it seemed to me that they said you could declare weapons would fire out of the melee combat, but in order to do so you needed to have no units within 1" when it came time to fire those weapons.

So it's basically like "I bet I'll be able to kill you with these guns, so I'll declare this other gun against a different target and hope I manage to get you out of 1" before it comes time to fire that one"

A great reveal today. Vehicles being able to move and shoot normally is wonderful! They will have to look at some of the Strats/rules put in place for some to compensate (Strafing Run on my Nephilim for instance, and Roving Gunship on my Valkryies), but this should make for a more mobile game. That, to me, means more fun.

Dreadnoughts with balanced weapon loadouts benefit - a Redemptor Dread now went up in usefulness for a number of reasons. They can now walk along and shoot normally, and if you assault one with a mob you had better hope you kill it/cripple it in your first round. Landspeeders might just find their way back to the tabletop?

Doctor-boom wrote:
Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...

That's just bad reading. The point of the rule is that you can split your fire instead of only shooting at the combatants next to you, but if they aren't dead when you come to the guns pointing at other directions you lose the shots. The declaration still happens before any shots are fired. This is the risk/reward Stu was talking about.

the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Overwatch doesn't cost CP.

To make Cut Them Down get the same value as the standard "1CP to do D3 MW when X" stratagem, you'd need to have 12 models within 1" of the unit. That's virtually impossible.

It's hot garbage of a stratagem. One of the worst stratagems in the game. That doesn't mean you can't come up with some weird situation it might be worth doing, but it utterly fails at its stated purpose. The only time you're going to see people using it is to fish for MW to kill a retreating character with a single wound left or something like that. The idea that it punishes people for falling back generally is a complete joke.

With the limitation of only models within 1", it would need to do MWs on a 4+ to be priced to move.

Or just, I don't know, not use the stupid fething MW mechanic in the first place? MWs make sense in really only the most specific rule circumstances and they make most things just laughably weird. Why the flying heck is it as danegerous to run away from a single grot as it is to run away from a warlord titan?

Definitely. The whole strat is set up stupidly from the beginning and makes no sense. But that's a different question from whether it's good or not in a mathematical sense. It could still be good with MWs as long as the values were set high enough, even if conceptually it was still a dumpster fire.

I wonder if PotMS will allow a Raider or Raven to fire one of it's weapons at top profile, regardless of current damage to vehicle?

 bullyboy wrote:
I wonder if PotMS will allow a Raider or Raven to fire one of it's weapons at top profile, regardless of current damage to vehicle?

Makes eminent sense!

Doctor-boom wrote:
Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...

That's not what it says at all. You still have to declare all targets, it's just that if you don't kill the ones in engagement range then the weapon you allocated to shoot out of combat will be unable to fire at all.

Yeah for the overwatch v cut them down mechanic there is no comparison. OW is objectively better on every level if we assume it has not changed much:

1) It doesn't cost a command point so you can overwatch with every unit that gets charged. Cut them down is limited to once per phase as a stratagem.

2) It is a normal shooting attack in every way. So, rapid fire? Shoot twice. Assault 5? Shoot 5 times! Re rolls? Yup, you get those.

3) Some armies hit on a 5+ when overwatching AND get re rolls and what not.

4) All models within shooting range (which will almost always be all models except for maybe flamers)

So yes, OW is simply better than cut them down in every conceivable way.

So if I'm to get this straight we (and that doesn't include me) are complaining that the biggest reason most vehicles in 8th are gak is because they suffer penalties to hit when moving and they can't fire defensively against units beating on their hulls now makes infantry NOT designed to kill tanks gak and not worth taking because those tanks can now fire defensively at units beating on them in melee.

Gotcha?

How is saying an ork power klaw nob can kill a tank just as fast in 9th a strawman? I didn't say it can kill it faster or slower, i said just as fast. A PK nob doesn't kill a tank SLOWER because that tank can now fire on the boys unit defensively (unless the boyz unit runs which obviously if the nob is the last one to run away means no more nob with PK beating on tank).

As to why people don't want to use iconic units to complete objectives and not for other things? It depends on the unit. Not all Daemon's units are meant for offense. Plaguebearers come to mind. Nobody takes 3 units of 20 plaguebearers to punch opponents armies to death in melee, they are taken to "secure objectives". SM Scouts are technically objective takers, that is even in their lore but most people don't take scouts because Intercessors are better at everything. Scouts are iconic, take Scouts for taking objectives if you want "iconic" objective takers in your army.

I think the biggest issue is that people will have to change their lists up slightly and change their mindset about the game. It's nothing new, it happens every edition. I don't see why 9th should be any different.

The more that I think about it, if they were actually going to restrict melee to only models within 1", not within 1" of 1", they would have already said so, because it would be without a doubt the biggest single change to the rules in the entire edition. They've answered questions about melee viability several times on various streams, and if they were making such a fundamental change, I refuse to believe that even GW would not yet have mentioned it.

All this junk about what is actually relatively minor changes to vehicles that they are hyping as "the" big change in 9th would pale in comparison to the significance of melee only within 1".

yukishiro1 wrote:
So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?

I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).

A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.

A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.

jivardi wrote:
So if I'm to get this straight we (and that doesn't include me) are complaining that the biggest reason most vehicles in 8th are gak is because they suffer penalties to hit when moving and they can't fire defensively against units beating on their hulls now makes infantry NOT designed to kill tanks gak and not worth taking because those tanks can now fire defensively at units beating on them in melee.

Gotcha?

How is saying an ork power klaw nob can kill a tank just as fast in 9th a strawman? I didn't say it can kill it faster or slower, i said just as fast. A PK nob doesn't kill a tank SLOWER because that tank can now fire on the boys unit defensively (unless the boyz unit runs which obviously if the nob is the last one to run away means no more nob with PK beating on tank).

As to why people don't want to use iconic units to complete objectives and not for other things? It depends on the unit. Not all Daemon's units are meant for offense. Plaguebearers come to mind. Nobody takes 3 units of 60 plaguebearers to punch opponents armies to death in melee, they are taken to "secure objectives". SM Scouts are technically objective takers, that is even in their lore but most people don't take scouts because Intercessors are better at everything. Scouts are iconic, take Scouts for taking objectives if you want "iconic" objective takers in your army.

I think the biggest issue is that people will have to change their lists up slightly and change their mindset about the game. It's nothing new, it happens every edition. I don't see why 9th should be any different.

I run Nurgle Daemons. My Plagubearers are there to kill stuff.

 JNAProductions wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?

I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).

A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.

A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.

The nob does the same (maybe even more against chaff?) damage as an assault centurion against 1W models. That's literally what the difference between a flat 3D weapon and a 1d3 weapon is. If flat 3D weapons weren't more efficient at hitting multi-wound targets, what would be the point in them?

So if your point after all that was that power klaws should cost 9 points, the same as power fists...yes, I agree. "Space marines are just better" is not good for the game.

Is anyone even reading all of this?

yukishiro1 wrote:
The more that I think about it, if they were actually going to restrict melee to only models within 1", not within 1" of 1", they would have already said so, because it would be without a doubt the biggest single change to the rules in the entire edition. They've answered questions about melee viability several times on various streams, and if they were making such a fundamental change, I refuse to believe that even GW would not yet have mentioned it.

All this junk about what is actually relatively minor changes to vehicles that they are hyping as "the" big change in 9th would pale in comparison to the significance of melee only within 1".

I wonder if they are thinking about moving to the AoS where melee weapons have a range, like 1', 2' and 3'. I think this would be a poor choice, as melee is already pretty weak and I don't think would translate over that well right now.

There are rumors that OW is going away entirely. That would pretty significantly improve melee prospects I believe.

That kinda proves the point, though. They're already cited "changes to overwatch" as a reason that melee will be better - in other words, they mentioned it. It would have been incredibly misleading if when talking about the balance between melee and ranged, they didn't mention a massive, game-changing reduction in the amount of melee models that can fight.

If I'm proved wrong I'm proved wrong, and I've been too optimistic in the past...but that would be both completely brainless and fundamentally game-changing, and I just don't think they'd have done it without it being front and center in their reveal.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The more that I think about it, if they were actually going to restrict melee to only models within 1", not within 1" of 1", they would have already said so, because it would be without a doubt the biggest single change to the rules in the entire edition. They've answered questions about melee viability several times on various streams, and if they were making such a fundamental change, I refuse to believe that even GW would not yet have mentioned it.

All this junk about what is actually relatively minor changes to vehicles that they are hyping as "the" big change in 9th would pale in comparison to the significance of melee only within 1".

Yeah, at this point the only thing that I can come up with is:

during all the previews leading up to 8th they basically gave no details about how melee would work, except that it would be "great' and "the best edition ever for melee".

and the reason why they didn't was...surprise, melee sucks in 8th.And the change from 7th to 8th massively improved shooting over melee.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I run Nurgle Daemons. My Plagubearers are there to kill stuff.

Eventually.

Doctor-boom wrote:
Somebody else noticed the Important rule change hidden in the "Big gun never tire" rule:
You now declare 1 weapon target, resolve, then declare next target or same for the next weapon from the same unit and resolve. Instead of declaring all at once and having to gamble what is enough firepower to kill the last bit of your target...

That's not new. Most people use fast rolling to speed things up though.

EDIT: I misread that. All targets are declared first, but individual weapons are resolved 1 at a time.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?

I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).

A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.

A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.

The nob does the same (maybe even more against chaff?) damage as an assault centurion against 1W models. That's literally what the difference between a flat 3D weapon and a 1d3 weapon is. If flat 3D weapons weren't more efficient at hitting multi-wound targets, what would be the point in them?

So if your point after all that was that power klaws should cost 9 points, the same as power fists...yes, I agree. "Space marines are just better" is not good for the game.

Really now? Name a chaff model that does better against 3-5 S10 AP-4 D3 swings and 12 S4 AP0 D1 shots per model.

Where are you getting the idea that holding an objective is an action that doesn't allow the unit to do anything that turn?

Not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't seen that, and it's another massive change.

jivardi wrote:

I run Nurgle Daemons. My Plagubearers are there to kill stuff.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Is anyone even reading all of this?

Obviously you still are, so why comment if you're unhappy with other people discussing it? Weird

yukishiro1 wrote:
Where are you getting the idea that holding an objective is an action that doesn't allow the unit to do anything that turn?

Not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't seen that, and it's another massive change.

it is something they've previewed for certain missions.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Where are you getting the idea that holding an objective is an action that doesn't allow the unit to do anything that turn?

Not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't seen that, and it's another massive change.

There are some missions that require you to perform actions that stop you from doing anything else with that unit in the previews.

 JNAProductions wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
So your point is that assault centurion squads are better against tanks than power klaw nob squads? Um...again, yes? It's really shouldn't be news to anyone that flat 3D weapons are better at killing models with large wounds values than 1d3 damage weapons. If they weren't, what would be the point of a 3D weapon?

I thought this was about whether a power klaw on the boss nob of a boyz squad is useful or not, not about whether whole quads of power klaw nobz make sense (they obviously don't).

A Nob kitted with a Klaw and Choppa is a melee-only model. It technically has grenades, but those very rarely see use. It is also about half the price of an Assault Centurion, who, despite the name, is a hybrid unit-very durable, very choppy, and very shooty.

A single Nob should be doing AT LEAST 2/3rds the damage of an Assault Centurion in close combat. It doesn't even come close.

The nob does the same (maybe even more against chaff?) damage as an assault centurion against 1W models. That's literally what the difference between a flat 3D weapon and a 1d3 weapon is. If flat 3D weapons weren't more efficient at hitting multi-wound targets, what would be the point in them?

So if your point after all that was that power klaws should cost 9 points, the same as power fists...yes, I agree. "Space marines are just better" is not good for the game.

Really now? Name a chaff model that does better against 3-5 S10 AP-4 D3 swings and 12 S4 AP0 D1 shots per model.

Uh we were obviously talking close combat. You're the one who mentioned close combat and said nobs need to do 2/3s or more the damage of assault centurions in close combat. I was simply pointing out that they do way more than just 2/3s the damage against anything with 1W.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Where are you getting the idea that holding an objective is an action that doesn't allow the unit to do anything that turn?

Not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't seen that, and it's another massive change.

There are some missions that require you to perform actions that stop you from doing anything else with that unit in the previews.

Right, but that isn't remotely the same as saying simply holding an objective requires you to perform an action.