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.

 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.

Hmm, maybe choosing for a unit to go on Overwatch in your turn? man I would love this. No more having cake and eating it, you either fire...or you choose to go defensive and go on Overwatch.

So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?

Yukishiro, let me see if I can get us on a level with each other.

Given the points costs, stats, and equipment, Assault Centurions and Nobs (hell, most Ork units in general) are wildly out of whack with each other. Either the Nobs need to be a LOT cheaper/harder hitting, or the Centurions need to go up/be made worse.

Do you agree?

Earlier rules preview.

The 2 example missions showed state in the mission that in order to take the objective the unit attempting to take it can perform no other actions that player turn.

Taken from the WH community article:

The new edition also adds actions to Warhammer 40,000. Traditionally, your models could either stand near objectives or shoot/punch. No longer! Now you can perform rituals, plant homing beacons, raise banners on key objectives and more. This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.

Notice the last sentence. "You need to decide to engage the enemy or accomplish the mission."

jivardi wrote:
Earlier rules preview.

The 2 example missions showed state in the mission that in order to take the objective the unit attempting to take it can perform no other actions that player turn.

Taken from the WH community article:

The new edition also adds actions to Warhammer 40,000. Traditionally, your models could either stand near objectives or shoot/punch. No longer! Now you can perform rituals, plant homing beacons, raise banners on key objectives and more. This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.

Notice the last sentence. "You need to decide to engage the enemy or accomplish the mission."

To clarify, that was only for the optional secondary objective worth up to 15VP total. The primary objectives didn’t involve performing an action at all.

Happy with those rules - they make sense.

Tanks can still fight effectively whereas dedicated artillery platforms are still worried about getting assaulted

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?

Triple Lord of Skulls are allready pretty damm competitive, TBH.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?

Plus, the new rules make the Defiler I bought 15 years ago ALMOST useable!!

Some missions have bonus points you get from selecting secondary objectives that involve doing actions that require you to do nothing else. This is basically just engineers from ITC.

But again, that isn't remotely the same as saying to hold an objective you now need to do an action that stops you from doing anything else. Those missions emphatically do *not* say that simply in order to hold an objective, you have to do an action that doesn't let you do anything else.

Will see if there is other changes to dreads... but basically the only good dreads appear to still be the shooty dreads. (Which got better) If you can’t get a melee dread into melee quick enough it’s going to be a waste of points. If you got a jack of all trades dread... you are paying a lot for half a profile you won’t use much.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yukishiro, let me see if I can get us on a level with each other.

Given the points costs, stats, and equipment, Assault Centurions and Nobs (hell, most Ork units in general) are wildly out of whack with each other. Either the Nobs need to be a LOT cheaper/harder hitting, or the Centurions need to go up/be made worse.

Do you agree?

Nobz in boyz units are just fine, aside from the stupidity of a power klaw costing 13 points while power fists that are exactly the same cost 9 points. That's just an instance of "space marines are just better" and should be fixed. Other than that, how can you possibly complain about getting a free Nob upgrade in a Boyz unit? That's tremendously good value.

Entire units of Nobz are a totally different question. They have been useless for a long time, and it would be great if they got something to make them not useless.

Leetown wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?

Plus, the new rules make the Defiler I bought 15 years ago ALMOST useable!!

Well except for the battlecannon. but it's not an edition of the game warhammer 40,000 if you allow the Defiler to use all the gak GW slapped on it. Tradition demands something be pointless!

It's artificial extra pricing for Nobz being S5 maybe. It's stupid but GW proves they're stupid all the time.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?

It's a super heavy, so it can already do everything that other vehicles are going to be able to in 9th. The current theory is that super heavys will have the advantage of retaining their ability to shoot at targets they aren't in cc with despite being in cc.

Also, they are eyesores. Please, get a real marine super heavy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Will see if there is other changes to dreads... but basically the only good dreads appear to still be the shooty dreads. (Which got better) If you can’t get a melee dread into melee quick enough it’s going to be a waste of points. If you got a jack of all trades dread... you are paying a lot for half a profile you won’t use much.

That's what warp time and dreadclaws are for.

gungo wrote:
Will see if there is other changes to dreads... but basically the only good dreads appear to still be the shooty dreads. (Which got better) If you can’t get a melee dread into melee quick enough it’s going to be a waste of points. If you got a jack of all trades dread... you are paying a lot for half a profile you won’t use much.

I don't know. I think the jack-of-all-trades dread got better. Previously, taking a gun was a waste of points on a melee dread due to the -1 to hit really hurting them. Now you can move, shoot your twin LC at vehicles and then engage with the close combat weapon. Still probably not as efficient as the shooty dreads, but I think better.

Also flame weapons on vehicles are definitely going to be the new hotness.

Were Leviathans still just A5? A gun + melee loadout looks good on them but if their attacks are so low might as well just spend the points on two shooting weapons since now those Heavy Flamers can kill whatever is in melee with them + one gun shooting into the squad, and then the other Stormcannon shoots regularly.

I’m curious if they will be changing wound allocation. If you get a unit in close enough to shut down a tank but only have 2 or 3 models within 1” then it might make it easier for vehicles to defend themselves with their side guns if wounds come off the closest models.

SirGrotzalot wrote:
I’m curious if they will be changing wound allocation. If you get a unit in close enough to shut down a tank but only have 2 or 3 models within 1” then it might make it easier for vehicles to defend themselves with their side guns if wounds come off the closest models.

I hope not. the 'closest model' wounding mechanic was terrible for two reasons.

1. It slowed the game so badly as people made sure their main models could not be sniped.
2. The whole artificially spreading wounds and making sure full models didn't die.

Moving to owner picks models is one of the best changes from 7th to 8 imo

the_scotsman wrote:

Leetown wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?

Plus, the new rules make the Defiler I bought 15 years ago ALMOST useable!!

Well except for the battlecannon. but it's not an edition of the game warhammer 40,000 if you allow the Defiler to use all the gak GW slapped on it. Tradition demands something be pointless!

No penalty for moving and shooting the battle cannon, so that's a bit better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I know we had some excitement for Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts, but what about the Lord of Skulls?

It's a super heavy, so it can already do everything that other vehicles are going to be able to in 9th. The current theory is that super heavys will have the advantage of retaining their ability to shoot at targets they aren't in cc with despite being in cc.

Also, they are eyesores. Please, get a real marine super heavy.

Pft, it's a great super heavy.

And I was more wanting to point out that a decent super heavy was looking more fun with the new rules.

I think Bjorn probably got the biggest boost of any single model in the game from these changes, especially with his assault cannon configuration that was kinda junk before. He effectively gets an additional 6+1d6 attacks in your turn now (the flamer + the assault cannon; the -1 to hit on the assault cannon is more or less balanced out by the auto-hits on the flamer) at S5/6 -1 1D, which makes his one single weakness - getting tarpitted with a bunch of junk infantry - go away. Still probably better with the twin lascannon TBH, but even that configuration got a significant boost.

The other big winners are anything with large volumes of shots, especially auto-hitting or non-heavy shots.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think Bjorn probably got the biggest boost of any single model in the game from these changes, especially with his assault cannon configuration that was kinda junk before. He effectively gets an additional 6+1d6 attacks in your turn now (the flamer + the assault cannon; the -1 to hit on the assault cannon is more or less balanced out by the auto-hits on the flamer) at S5/6 -1 1D, which makes his one single weakness - getting tarpitted with a bunch of junk infantry - go away. Still probably better with the twin lascannon TBH, but even that configuration got a significant boost.

The other big winners are anything with large volumes of shots, especially auto-hitting or non-heavy shots.

A thought crossed my mind since Bjorn came up: if he gets the Primaris treatment will he get to be undreadnoughted?

On another note is anyone else having difficulty reading some of these rules or is it just me? They seem overly wordy or something. I’m having to reread them 3+ times just to understand what they’re trying to say.

SirGrotzalot wrote:
On another note is anyone else having difficulty reading some of these rules or is it just me? They seem overly wordy or something. I’m having to reread them 3+ times just to understand what they’re trying to say.

They need a paragraph break in there, but other than that I feel like they went all in on trying to eliminate ambiguity, which makes the rules a lot wordier than they used to be.

SirGrotzalot wrote:
On another note is anyone else having difficulty reading some of these rules or is it just me? They seem overly wordy or something. I’m having to reread them 3+ times just to understand what they’re trying to say.

The BNT rule is definitely very wordy, but it seems to be covering most of the intereactions you would expect rather than leaving them to FAQ's and guesswork. The squished format of WarCom doesn't help and would probably be easier to read on the page anyway.


Todays reveals are pretty much all good, there are a lot of vehicles and a few monsters that are only really being held back by the movement penalty and the lack of Fly, so whilst this isn't a complete fix for everything it's definitely a good step.

"We at Games Workshop feel that shooting are underpowered, so we decided to buff them!"

- is basically what I've gleaned from the tank article. The attempted justification they gave is garbage too. Yeah a single nurgling shouldn't be able to tie up a Land Raider for all eternity, but that's more because land raiders should be fething super-heavy vehicles in the first place (look at the size of them). It absolutely makes sense for a squad of bloodletters to be able to tie up a Leman Russ though. Not only does it make sense from a simulation perspective (your vehicle is being swarmed by fething daemons with lava swords) but balance wise it takes significantly more skill and strategy to get melee units into combat then it takes to pilot armored gunlines, especially with chaff being as easy to come by as they are.

There had better be some serious fething buffs to melee armies for this edition. "b-but new terrain rules!" No. Terrain will never have a massive impact on gunlines. Half the gak in the game can fly anyway.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"We at Games Workshop feel that shooting are underpowered, so we decided to buff them!"

- is basically what I've gleaned from the tank article. The attempted justification they gave is garbage too. Yeah a single nurgling shouldn't be able to tie up a Land Raider for all eternity, but that's more because land raiders should be fething super-heavy vehicles in the first place (look at the size of them). It absolutely makes sense for a squad of bloodletters to be able to tie up a Leman Russ though. Not only does it make sense from a simulation perspective (your vehicle is being swarmed by fething daemons with lava swords) but balance wise it takes significantly more skill and strategy to get melee units into combat then it takes to pilot armored gunlines, especially with chaff being as easy to come by as they are.

There had better be some serious fething buffs to melee armies for this edition.

They felt that tanks and monsters were underpowered. They didn't buff shooting on infantry.

The weakest tanks in the game are better then the average footslogging melee infantry.

 bullyboy wrote:
Several online BR channels (with one especially that is now known to be a playtester) have said that they 'thought" Codex Space marines 2.0 and Sisters of battle "felt" like 9th edition codexes compared to others. Just the way the armies were organized to encourage mono play. So it's not unrealistic to believe that some of the content of the PA Books was created with 9th in mind.

Eh the mono bonuses makes no sense when core rules already rewards mono. Those bonuses are 8th ed compliant rather than 9th


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
-1 To Hit for firing Heavy Weapons only applies to infantry now... hmm...

Maybe Forgefiends will be viable?

Certainly can’t see it harming them any.

And taken with the ‘kick combatants in the teeth and still shoot them’ definitely favours the like of Forgefiends. Possibly to the exclusion of Maulerfiends (I think that’s what it’s called?) if nothing else factors in.

Funny thing. Vehicles/monsters got buffed and at same time infantry heavy weapons got nerfed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
it will be now interesting to see the Day 1 errata as there are so many things that revolve around the shooting heavy weapons while moving rule. Just off the top of my head..
Machine Spirit for land raiders and storm ravens...what will it do now?
Crystal Targeting Matrix for Eldar
Ravenwing Impeccable Mobility Warlord Trait (which was soooo good, but now redundant)
I'm sure there are many, many more.

yes, Land Raider Crusaders will benefit...want to tag a unit with 24 hurricane bolter shots (probably at -1AP too), 12 assault cannon shots, 4 storm bolter shots? Ouch.
I'm just excited that the Corvus Blackstar is now looking OK again, and Ravenwing land speeders for days.

Sister of battle mortifier has ability to fire heavy flamers in melee. Guess that needs change or those got hit by nerfbat

tneva82 wrote:
Funny thing. Vehicles/monsters got buffed and at same time infantry heavy weapons got nerfed

They did not get nerfed. They are exactly the same.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well I wanted flamers to have the blast rules, but now I'm not so sure ^^'.

They specifically called out h.flamers as nasty in melee