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.

 p5freak wrote:
Vehicles sound really strong in 9th. You cant prevent them from shooting, their blast weapons will obliterate 11+ models infantry. I think 9th edition armies will be quite vehicle heavy (unless they get something like a 50% point increase), and infantry units will have no more than 10 models.

Remember that Blast weapons can't work in Engagement range. That will actually curb a lot of vehicles if you can tarpit them.

 p5freak wrote:
Vehicles sound really strong in 9th. You cant prevent them from shooting, their blast weapons will obliterate 11+ models infantry.

They just get one of those advantage at the same time though. If you can obliterate 11+ model infantry, then you can be prevented from shooting.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Been playing since 1997... Quite well aware of how it happens.

What doesn't make sense is the people within this forum.

Then you should know that what is currently happening with Necrons is an extreme (EXTREME) outlier and not the norm.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Vehicles sound really strong in 9th. You cant prevent them from shooting, their blast weapons will obliterate 11+ models infantry. I think 9th edition armies will be quite vehicle heavy (unless they get something like a 50% point increase), and infantry units will have no more than 10 models.

Remember that Blast weapons can't work in Engagement range. That will actually curb a lot of vehicles if you can tarpit them.

Or require heavy flamer sponsons

 p5freak wrote:
Vehicles sound really strong in 9th. You cant prevent them from shooting, their blast weapons will obliterate 11+ models infantry. I think 9th edition armies will be quite vehicle heavy (unless they get something like a 50% point increase), and infantry units will have no more than 10 models.

That is good to point out, perhaps things like battlecanon TCs with sponsoon H bolters look great now, but will cost 230 points, and then won't look that great in the end (dare I say they will just look... Balanced ?). I also think 9th edition armies will be quite vehicle heavy, but perhaps not as much as some fear at the moment

This is the first rule that they previewed for 9th that I personally and not a fan of. There are many ways that this rule could have been better implemented. I think GW forgot that there are some weapons out there that have multi-D6 shots, and giving them full hits against 11+ is over the top. Basically now bring 10 guys or bring 50 guys, nothing in between

 p5freak wrote:
Vehicles sound really strong in 9th. You cant prevent them from shooting....

I thought if the vehicle can't kill the models in engagement range, then they can't shoot anything else? So tying them up in combat is still a thing, just some vehicles will be better at extracting themselves than others. Artillery with blast weapons are still looking pretty vulnerable.

To everyone saying "Wait and see" how long do we wait for?

Because first, it's "Wait for the full rules!"
Then, it's "Wait for it to play out on the tabletop-don't just theorycraft!"
Then, it's "Wait for the next Codex/Chapter Approved/Update!"

This thread is generating a lot of alerts and I'm having to edit or delete numerous posts. Everyone, please chill out.

 p5freak wrote:
Vehicles sound really strong in 9th. You cant prevent them from shooting, their blast weapons will obliterate 11+ models infantry. I think 9th edition armies will be quite vehicle heavy (unless they get something like a 50% point increase), and infantry units will have no more than 10 models.

You can force them to shoot at less than optimal targets, LoS is apparently supposed to be harder to draw cross board, and blasts don't work in melee.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
What's the point in moaning then, moan when you have something to moan about, not when you know 10% of the situation.

Amazing how much of this crap goes on, on this forum, absolute meltdowns were being had about Pariah about how necrons always get shafted as no models had been announced (at that time), having to tell absolute cry babies that wait until you know all the information to whinge and moan... Look who was right in that situation.

Sit down, shut up and save your bloody hissy fits until you have a reason to (if there is one at all).

.... Amen. I guess I am blessed to have a decent size group of friends who are gamers, so have don’t often play strangers, nor play tournaments very often, so am not really at the mercy of the meta. It’s a game. However, if these changes are really going to be detrimental to your investment in this game, to your enjoyment, perhaps rather than indulge in a big bitch fest and pity party, get organized, run a petition or sign up and let GW know what the problem is - and yeah, maybe you need to vote with your wallet to get them to listen. If you want it done differently, do something. Maybe something along a pledge drive for players to sign onto that says unless GW starts releasing beta rules to allow community feedback, I as a player will not buy the next Space Marine codex. You get 5K signs in something like that...you have leverage.

 xeen wrote:
This is the first rule that they previewed for 9th that I personally and not a fan of. There are many ways that this rule could have been better implemented. I think GW forgot that there are some weapons out there that have multi-D6 shots, and giving them full hits against 11+ is over the top. Basically now bring 10 guys or bring 50 guys, nothing in between

I'm in the same boat. There is going to need to be some major changes to help balance this out against infantry. This is such a huge swing in the opposite direction that is not needed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
To everyone saying "Wait and see" how long do we wait for?

Because first, it's "Wait for the full rules!"
Then, it's "Wait for it to play out on the tabletop-don't just theorycraft!"
Then, it's "Wait for the next Codex/Chapter Approved/Update!"

Wait for the full rules is all I ask the doomsayers to do because it's too easy to assume things that don't line up with how the rules work. Playing games could smooth that out too, but I don't push that too much. Codexes and Chapter Approved can make or break any system so that's a goal post I don't buy into.

Basically, claiming everyone wants to move goal posts on you because they want people to wait until the rules are out to call the game "broken" seems a bit much.

I don't see how this rule makes the game better. They wanted to reduce arbitrary results - this only increases it. Shoot at 10 boyz with 2d6 weapon? Get 2 shots if you roll badly. Shoot at 11? 12 shots every time! That makes sense!

Also, shoot at 20 models in a unit spread over 40 inches of board space? Max shots every time! Shoot at 60 models all packed within a 6 inch castle? Don't get any bonus at all, as long as they're all MSU units of 5 or less.

I don't get how this benefits the immersion factor, or how it leads to better balanced gameplay.

I think the rules for blast weapons are almost exactly what people guessed they would be. Cool. The context for these changes won't be known for a while yet though, so it's hard to judge. At least they didn't make the cut off 10 models and went with 11 instead.

Well, my first thought was that most blast weapons still get less hits than when they could put a blast marker over a piled in/disembarked/deep struck ork unit.

The only mildly annoying thing is that bringing fluffy 7 plague marines instead of optimized 5 is now getting punished.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how this rule makes the game better. They wanted to reduce arbitrary results - this only increases it. Shoot at 10 boyz with 2d6 weapon? Get 2 shots if you roll badly. Shoot at 11? 12 shots every time! That makes sense!

Also, shoot at 20 models in a unit spread over 40 inches of board space? Max shots every time! Shoot at 60 models all packed within a 6 inch castle? Don't get any bonus at all, as long as they're all MSU units of 5 or less.

I don't get how this benefits the immersion factor, or how it leads to better balanced gameplay.

If the unit has 6 or more models you can't shoot less than 3 shots. So if you snake eyes on 2d6 it's still 3 shots.

We don't know for sure what weapons will be blast, much less if those profiles changed or not. We'll have to wait and see.

Oh, well that definitely changes the point. 3 shots against 10, vs 12 against 11!

I don't see how your second sentence addresses the point. How does it improve the game to punish someone for taking the same number of models in a larger unit, rather than taking them in two smaller units?

I just don't see the reason for this change. It doesn't "make sense." It leads to very strange and arbitrary results based on how you choose to take your models, and to bizarre incentives where you will be upset that one of your models lived because it means you'll get smashed with far more firepower than if you didn't from the next volley. It doesn't punish castling.

So what's the gameplay benefit?

 Sasori wrote:

 xeen wrote:
This is the first rule that they previewed for 9th that I personally and not a fan of. There are many ways that this rule could have been better implemented. I think GW forgot that there are some weapons out there that have multi-D6 shots, and giving them full hits against 11+ is over the top. Basically now bring 10 guys or bring 50 guys, nothing in between

I'm in the same boat. There is going to need to be some major changes to help balance this out against infantry. This is such a huge swing in the opposite direction that is not needed.

The cover and terrain rules will be the key. Maybe why they're being so tight lipped about it. If infantry can get old fashioned cover saves again it would explain a lot.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Oh, well that definitely changes the point. 3 shots against 10, vs 12 against 11!

I don't see how your second sentence addresses the point. How does it improve the game to punish someone for taking the same number of models in a larger unit, rather than taking them in two smaller units?

I just don't see the reason for this change.

My point was some of the profiles, like 2D6 might be changing. We also haven't seen the full terrain rules, though they did point out that board density is apparently high enough that you shouldn't get easy LoS cross the board.

There is also a chance that blast weapons could see a points hike to match their better killing power, especially since some of the ones I assume to be blasts in the future are currently free or so cheap they might as well be free.

I have to love how Harlequins are now classified as a hord3 unit at full size and get max shots. With the price per model too, doesn't sound good for foot Quins which I was very excited to try before.

I don't see how any of that addresses how it makes the game better either.

"We don't know the full rules" isn't an argument for the benefit of this change, it's an argument that we don't know what the full effect will be.

Assume all the changes are very worked out to be totally "balanced" in terms of point values. How does it improve the game to add this feature? What is the gameplay benefit of punishing people significantly for taking 11 models instead of 10?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how any of that addresses how it makes the game better either.

"We don't know the full rules" isn't an argument for the benefit of this change, it's an argument that we don't know what the full effect will be.

Assume all the changes are very worked out to be totally "balanced" in terms of point values. How does it improve the game to add this feature? What is the gameplay benefit of punishing people significantly for taking 11 models instead of 10?

"We don't know the full rules" is more a plea for cooler heads until we know enough to definitively state that things are indeed actually broken.

Also it's an attempt to make certain unloved units more playable. Like the humble Basalisk.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Oh, well that definitely changes the point. 3 shots against 10, vs 12 against 11!

I don't see how your second sentence addresses the point. How does it improve the game to punish someone for taking the same number of models in a larger unit, rather than taking them in two smaller units?

I just don't see the reason for this change. It doesn't "make sense." It leads to very strange and arbitrary results based on how you choose to take your models, and to bizarre incentives where you will be upset that one of your models lived because it means you'll get smashed with far more firepower than if you didn't from the next volley. It doesn't punish castling.

So what's the gameplay benefit?

I mean the stream said the reasoning was basically just "because we thought blowing up hordes was cool!"

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To everyone saying "Wait and see" how long do we wait for?

Because first, it's "Wait for the full rules!"
Then, it's "Wait for it to play out on the tabletop-don't just theorycraft!"
Then, it's "Wait for the next Codex/Chapter Approved/Update!"

Wait for the full rules is all I ask the doomsayers to do because it's too easy to assume things that don't line up with how the rules work. Playing games could smooth that out too, but I don't push that too much. Codexes and Chapter Approved can make or break any system so that's a goal post I don't buy into.

Basically, claiming everyone wants to move goal posts on you because they want people to wait until the rules are out to call the game "broken" seems a bit much.

Alright-here's what I want to ask of you.

Full judgement should be reserved till the full rules are out-but can you agree that, especially for melee, things look grim as they are now? I won't claim that there's nothing in 9th rules that will fix that, but from what's been ACTUALLY SHOWN, it looks bad.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how any of that addresses how it makes the game better either.

"We don't know the full rules" isn't an argument for the benefit of this change, it's an argument that we don't know what the full effect will be.

Assume all the changes are very worked out to be totally "balanced" in terms of point values. How does it improve the game to add this feature? What is the gameplay benefit of punishing people significantly for taking 11 models instead of 10?

"We don't know the full rules" is more a plea for cooler heads until we know enough to definitively state that things are indeed actually broken.

But I didn't say it was broken. Please read what I'm writing. You're repeatedly responding to a straw man while ignoring what I've actually written.

I said: I don't see the gameplay benefit of this rule, whether it's broken or not. What is the gameplay benefit of punishing people for taking 11 model or more units? How does this improve the game?

If you can't come up with any gameplay benefit that's fine, you can just say that.

I am going to wait with a verdict on whether it is bad or not when I can actually get a game in using the entire ruleset and new points.

I think it is no coincidence we'll be getting some terrain previews tomorrow. Could very well be that terrain and cover has changed so drastically that tank and blast weapons are just balancing that mechanic out.

Either way, I am excited for all of this.

So, just so I'm clear:

Shooting at under 6 model-units:

No change to shots (vehicles, monsters, MSU)

Shooting at 6-11 model-units:

1D3 Blast

1,2 = 3 attacks
3,4 = 3 attacks
5,6 = 3 attacks

2D3 Blast

1,2 on both = 3 attacks
1,2 & 3,4 = 3 attacks
3,4 on both = 4 attacks
3,4 & 5,6 = 5 attacks
5,6 on both = 6 attacks

3D3 and higher can't roll less than 3 attacks.

1D6 Blast

1, 2 = 3 attacks
3+ = 3+ attacks

2D6 Blast

1,1 = 3 attacks
1,2 = 3 attacks
2,2 = 4 attacks (and so on)

3D6 and higher can't roll less than 3 attacks.


Shooting at 11+ model-units (you don't roll, but showing the numbers anyway for comparison):

1D3 Blast

1,2 = 3 attacks
3,4 = 3 attacks
5,6 = 3 attacks

2D3 Blast

1,2 on both = 6 attacks
1,2 & 3,4 = 6 attacks
3,4 on both = 6 attacks
3,4 & 5,6 = 6 attacks
5,6 on both = 6 attacks

1D6 Blast

All rolls = 6 attacks

2D6 Blast

All rolls = 12 attacks

And so on.

 xttz wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Vehicles sound really strong in 9th. You cant prevent them from shooting....

I thought if the vehicle can't kill the models in engagement range, then they can't shoot anything else? So tying them up in combat is still a thing, just some vehicles will be better at extracting themselves than others. Artillery with blast weapons are still looking pretty vulnerable.

That seems to be exactly the case All depends on what does and does not get Blast keyword

the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Oh, well that definitely changes the point. 3 shots against 10, vs 12 against 11!

I don't see how your second sentence addresses the point. How does it improve the game to punish someone for taking the same number of models in a larger unit, rather than taking them in two smaller units?

I just don't see the reason for this change. It doesn't "make sense." It leads to very strange and arbitrary results based on how you choose to take your models, and to bizarre incentives where you will be upset that one of your models lived because it means you'll get smashed with far more firepower than if you didn't from the next volley. It doesn't punish castling.

So what's the gameplay benefit?

I mean the stream said the reasoning was basically just "because we thought blowing up hordes was cool!"

Right, which is what makes me worried. GW themselves have not articulated any reason that this will actually improve gameplay.

A lot of the changes they have made have obvious arguments for them - the tank changes, changes to the "haha you can't fight my grot cause he's on a crate," etc.

This one has no obvious way it will improve the game, and GW hasn't explained why they think it will improve the game. It seems a case of "let's do this because it would be cool," not because it actually improves the game. And those decisions are always problematic.