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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Aash wrote:
Is the blast rule tied to the Horde keyword or is it any unit with that number of models?

Number of models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They said they were raising points on most of the game, so why are we acting like Cultists will be the only things hit hard by this?

It's an example. They've made it far easier to kill big units, and at the same time they're increasing the price on said big units.

They're even talking about min-maxing Hormagaunt units with 10 or 11 models on the stream right now.

Meh, we'll see. I still feel like people are trying too hard to complain about things with not enough info.

They just highlighted how cool it will be that for 1cp a squad of guardsmen will be able to put down 6 shots per model with their 10 frag grenades vs a target with 11 models.

Cool, coolcoolcool, great rules design lol.

Blast Weapons will be listed as an appendix in the main rulebook for the start of the edition. Going forward, it will be added as a keyword in codices.

the_scotsman wrote:
They just highlighted how cool it will be that for 1cp a squad of guardsmen will be able to put down 6 shots per model with their 10 frag grenades vs a target with 11 models.

Cool, coolcoolcool, great rules design lol.

Everything is great and works. I heard it on youtube.

 Therion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
They just highlighted how cool it will be that for 1cp a squad of guardsmen will be able to put down 6 shots per model with their 10 frag grenades vs a target with 11 models.

Cool, coolcoolcool, great rules design lol.

Everything is great and works. I heard it on youtube.

People complained about 37lasgun Shots at 12" , surely 60 frag Hits is fine and dandy.......

At least it's shots and not hits.

Lots of orks used as punching bag. Gw isn't even subtle on what they have sold enough in 8th and want to sell elites now. That's why predicting what is good and bad is easy with gw. A) no subtle rule interactions b) gw flat out non subtly spells it out

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Smaller board making more tactical? Seriously doubting their qualification if removing importance of movement makes game more tactical...

Having less room to manoeuvre doesn’t detract from careful movement. Like, at all?

depends with the ranges on guns we have nowadays and as of yet no news in regards how good terrain actually will be , yes smaller tables will lower overall manouvre value.
That said, if the cover system is good then yes they might have a point.

Also not sure on the combat armies exemple, because smaller sizes makes them better but good enough remains to be seen.

We all know gun ranges are going to be the same. The game will have the same exact "I go first and since the table is even SMALLER I can shoot with more of my guys!"
Then codex creep will happen again of course.

And yet you'll keep playing, keep coming on here and continue to complain.

When one sinks thousands of dollars into a product line, it's well within one's right to complain about changes to the product line that makes one's purchases less than useful, yes?

 Therion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
They just highlighted how cool it will be that for 1cp a squad of guardsmen will be able to put down 6 shots per model with their 10 frag grenades vs a target with 11 models.

Cool, coolcoolcool, great rules design lol.

Everything is great and works. I heard it on youtube.

I regularly see guardsmen units running within 6" of enemy hordes....

 Vulcan wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Smaller board making more tactical? Seriously doubting their qualification if removing importance of movement makes game more tactical...

Having less room to manoeuvre doesn’t detract from careful movement. Like, at all?

depends with the ranges on guns we have nowadays and as of yet no news in regards how good terrain actually will be , yes smaller tables will lower overall manouvre value.
That said, if the cover system is good then yes they might have a point.

Also not sure on the combat armies exemple, because smaller sizes makes them better but good enough remains to be seen.

We all know gun ranges are going to be the same. The game will have the same exact "I go first and since the table is even SMALLER I can shoot with more of my guys!"
Then codex creep will happen again of course.

And yet you'll keep playing, keep coming on here and continue to complain.

When one sinks thousands of dollars into a product line, it's well within one's right to complain about changes to the product line that makes one's purchases less than useful, yes?

Aye, but at some point it's better to cut your losses and move on instead of a falling into a sunk-cost fallacy.

 Vulcan wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Smaller board making more tactical? Seriously doubting their qualification if removing importance of movement makes game more tactical...

Having less room to manoeuvre doesn’t detract from careful movement. Like, at all?

depends with the ranges on guns we have nowadays and as of yet no news in regards how good terrain actually will be , yes smaller tables will lower overall manouvre value.
That said, if the cover system is good then yes they might have a point.

Also not sure on the combat armies exemple, because smaller sizes makes them better but good enough remains to be seen.

We all know gun ranges are going to be the same. The game will have the same exact "I go first and since the table is even SMALLER I can shoot with more of my guys!"
Then codex creep will happen again of course.

And yet you'll keep playing, keep coming on here and continue to complain.

When one sinks thousands of dollars into a product line, it's well within one's right to complain about changes to the product line that makes one's purchases less than useful, yes?

Within reason, I'd argue years of being consistently negative and upset with them to the point you need to complain to others incessantly should be enough to suggest you need a new hobby though. Plus since Slayer doesn't buy their published materials, they have less to lose at least.

Dudeface wrote:

 Therion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
They just highlighted how cool it will be that for 1cp a squad of guardsmen will be able to put down 6 shots per model with their 10 frag grenades vs a target with 11 models.

Cool, coolcoolcool, great rules design lol.

Everything is great and works. I heard it on youtube.

I regularly see guardsmen units running within 6" of enemy hordes....

TIL 11 models is a "horde" and not 1 over the min unit size of like half the units in the game.

When one sinks thousands of dollars into a product line, it's well within one's right to complain about changes to the product line that makes one's purchases less than useful, yes?

What did they make less useful? Do you have all the points and rules in front of you along with new points? If so you should start leaking them somewhere.

By the way, can you look up the new points on Eldar Guardians and Shuriken Catapults? I am curious where these things fall right now.

TIL 11 models is a "horde" and not 1 over the min unit size of like half the units in the game.

Not really many units in the game that are 11 and beyond and most of them belong to horde armies. I mean, sure, you can run 11 Kabalite Warriors, but most run them 5-10 due to how the special and heavy weapons work, plus they fit better in a raider.

Ultimately the problem is that if they put this rule on something 20 or higher it would only kick in every 30 game or so due to how most people play smaller squads ingeneral. So I understand why they picked 6 and 11. Those numbers are more in line with the actual number of models in the game than whatever real life definition one has of a horde.

Well, fabulous bill's buffalo bill boys seem predictably dull, just a slight re-flavoring of about 1/2 of the CSM legion traits.

the_scotsman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Therion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
They just highlighted how cool it will be that for 1cp a squad of guardsmen will be able to put down 6 shots per model with their 10 frag grenades vs a target with 11 models.

Cool, coolcoolcool, great rules design lol.

Everything is great and works. I heard it on youtube.

I regularly see guardsmen units running within 6" of enemy hordes....

TIL 11 models is a "horde" and not 1 over the min unit size of like half the units in the game.

Don't about half the units in the game cap out at 10 models?

I do like that there is a 6+ caveat in the rule for smaller units as well, plus still rolling to hit means that they can still whiff. That said, I hope Blast Weapons saw a points bump to match.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said, I hope Blast Weapons saw a points bump to match.

That's GW logic.

Problem: Weapon X is ineffective.
Solution A: Reduce its cost to make it worth it's abilities.
Solution B: Increase its abilities to make it worth its cost.

You don't do both!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said, I hope Blast Weapons saw a points bump to match.

That's GW logic.

Problem: Weapon X is ineffective.
Solution A: Reduce its cost to make it worth it's abilities.
Solution B: Increase its abilities to make it worth its cost.

You don't do both!

Right, it's not like Thunderfire Cannons, Basilisks, Battlecannons, neutron lasers, plasma whatevers (the big knight gun), plagueburst crawlers or any other blast weapon was top of the meta in 8th.

Oh wait.

Ninja'd!

I play orks nids and GSC mainly and I am fine with how blast works, it seems like honestly simple and good rule design. They said blast weapons would go up in price reltively to where they sit today.
And if it becomes an elite meta, then no reason for people to take lots of blast weapons. So you bring your horde to a game, counter meta, your opponent expected a dredd mob instead of your 90 overpriced boyz, blam !
Perhaps you win thanks to him not havoing the right weapons to deal with your 90 overpriced boyz.

Who knows ? Problems will occur if rules kinf of "force" people to bring troops in sufficient numbers that hordes don't become "counter meta"... Then hordes seem kinda screwed. Not so much because of blast so much as vehicules/MCs still shooting while engaged.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3-11 models = min 3 hits with blast.
12+ = full hits with blast.

Still have to roll To Hit though.

And they put the cost of Cultists up?

Also not flamers, because that makes sense.

They said they were raising points on most of the game, so why are we acting like Cultists will be the only things hit hard by this?

Because Cultists were raised by a whopping 50% in case you forgot.

the_scotsman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said, I hope Blast Weapons saw a points bump to match.

That's GW logic.

Problem: Weapon X is ineffective.
Solution A: Reduce its cost to make it worth it's abilities.
Solution B: Increase its abilities to make it worth its cost.

You don't do both!

Right, it's not like Thunderfire Cannons, Basilisks, Battlecannons, neutron lasers, plasma whatevers (the big knight gun), plagueburst crawlers or any other blast weapon was top of the meta in 8th.

Oh wait.

Expect these to get an absurdly high point increase. GW has other, newer kits to sell

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Are there any Blast Pistol type weapons?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Problem: Weapon X is ineffective.
Solution A: Reduce its cost to make it worth it's abilities.
Solution B: Increase its abilities to make it worth its cost.

You don't do both!

Or you do both. You just increased the ability. To a point where it is exactly worth the cost? Well, given you changed more than a thousand different weapons, no. Some might need point increase, and other point decrease, to be worth their point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

[/quote

Are there any Blast Pistol type weapons?

Since 'Blast' is a new rule, we'll have to wait until 9th drops to find out.

Either Blast isn't a keyword in the same way as Pistol, Rapid Fire or Heavy Weapon
Or we will see weapons with multiple of those keywords

So blast weapons that do D3 attacks get max attacks on groups of 6 or more?

 Ghaz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

[/quote

Are there any Blast Pistol type weapons?

Since 'Blast' is a new rule, we'll have to wait until 9th drops to find out.

I'm more talking in general from past editions.

Actually really like the blast rule. When it comes to random shots vs large enemies with a fragmentation type weapon, rolling a 1 is simply dumb. This is much better.

Doohicky wrote:
So blast weapons that do D3 attacks get max attacks on groups of 6 or more?

Yes, but specifically ONLY 1d3 - they said that the result of the roll, not the result of the dice, needs to be less than 3.

So a weapon with a profile of, say, 3d3, gains no benefit from the "6 or more" part of the roll - the minimum result of the roll is already 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Terrain deets tomorrow. Really looking forward to that, finally some info we don't already *mostly* have.