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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Did they ever say that 20 points for an Intercessor includes weapons and a Sergeant?

Because autorifles have a 99.999999% chance of not costing anything, but bolt rifles? There's a 50/50 split on them getting a points cost. Same with Marine Sergeants.

Aren't bolt and stalker free and autos somehow cost points? lol

Man I can only hope when the new numarine book drops they did something to stalker bolt rifles. Damage 2 was/is stupid. AP -3 was even sillier. I'd rather see them -1 but ignore cover with a longer range.

Ice_can wrote:

 MPJ wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

The problem is when GW has been pretty much only previewing rules that benefit marines, talking about how great marines are going to be, saying how the armies people are playing have gotten so much more elite, in the middle of a marine meta that makes the most uninteractive, dull tau meta look like amazing fun in comparison.

how many blast weapons do Marines even have? compared to say... the Guard, not a whole lot I wager

No, but they are uniquely equipped to avoid blast weapons with their ability to break their infantry units into combat squads. Playing a guard list with lots of blast weapons? Break your 10 man squads into 5s, break your 6 man squads of aggressors and the like into 3s. Can anyone else do that? Maybe they can and I'm forgetting.

Just checked Tactical flexability only works on full 10 model units and is done in the marine players movement phase so 1 unit per turn.

All marine armies have the combat squads special rule allowing all units with said rule to be split into two squads and most units also have a minimum number that’s five or less as well. So it’s every unit at the start of the game

My bad, though this make it look more like Marines 2.0 is terrible for balance in both 8th which it broke and looks like it's still going to be broke in 9th.

That's what everything we've seen so far seems to suggest. Every rule either benefits loyalists, or they have a way around it, or both. I'm hoping the new terrain rules will help alleviate this perception, but am doubtful.

 Galas wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
A squad of marines is not 500 points, which is what they'd have to be for the 50% increase to be accurate. "A squad of marines" points to the same 20% multiple people have said. Every indication we have is that average costs are going up by 20%, not 50%. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. You are free to do so if you want to anyway, but it's backed up by nothing, and contradicted by every single person who knows the rules who has spoken up about it.

Your focus on percentage increase is just a perfect example of why super cheap units are hard to point appropriately. If a model cost 2pts, it would have a 50% increase if it went to 3 points....but that's pretty much the only way it can be increased. If Cultists went up just 1 point that would still be a 25% increase. There is too little granularity in something that is pointed so low and this is something GW is moving away from. Good news is, you won;t need them to fuel your chaos armies anymore with cheap CP batteries. So if you think they're overcosted and useless (before seeing all the rules), just don't use them.

I remember a 10 man tactical squad being 300 points in 2nd ed. They always cut points to encourage folks to use more models ($) rather then simply making the standard game sizes larger in the core rules. The starting cost for every unit in the game should have been 10 points. It's a nice clean number that's easily adjusted from. Also, when a unit is released and is too cheap, it needs to go up rather then bringing everyone else down. But the community complains too much when their units get balanced. GW did increases in CA17 but predictably in 18 and 19 you pretty much only saw across the games cuts. Why? Because now everyone is happy right? Only after two rounds of that stratagy and you entirely remove the room you built into the game for granular adjustments lol. So here we are.

Can you really blame them? I mean, I'm always in favour of "nerfs" but people HATE nerfs. What people LOVE is buffs to their stuff so they can be as broken as everything else. They fell rewarded, instead of something being cut ouf of them.

One needs to be a very serious and commited developer to make what it is needed for the long term health of a game/product when doing it is in most cases negatively perceived by the consumers. And thats bad on itself, because you are selling a product.

I never said I blamed them, at least not entirely. The issue is with both the community and the devs. Because both end up more unhappy in the end when they take the easy route.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Did they ever say that 20 points for an Intercessor includes weapons and a Sergeant?

Because autorifles have a 99.999999% chance of not costing anything, but bolt rifles? There's a 50/50 split on them getting a points cost. Same with Marine Sergeants.

Aren't bolt and stalker free and autos somehow cost points? lol

Man I can only hope when the new numarine book drops they did something to stalker bolt rifles. Damage 2 was/is stupid. AP -3 was even sillier. I'd rather see them -1 but ignore cover with a longer range.

Yep, Auto Bolt Rifles cost 1(gasp!) point. I don't know if Chapter Approved changed that, as I didn't nab it.

I could see Bolt Rifles being 1-2 points, Stalkers 3ppm, Auto Bolt Rifles 1-2 as well. Sergeants being a couple of points extra wouldn't be unreasonable either.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yep, Auto Bolt Rifles cost 1(gasp!) point. I don't know if Chapter Approved changed that, as I didn't nab it.

I could see Bolt Rifles being 1-2 points, Stalkers 3ppm, Auto Bolt Rifles 1-2 as well. Sergeants being a couple of points extra wouldn't be unreasonable either.

When thinking of this point:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's also a problem with how cheap units like cultists have gotten. the bottem area of troop choices (cultists guard etc) where so cheap it was proably becoming a problem, when you're so cheap a single point adjustment is a 25% increase, it gets REALY hard to add options or tweek points.

... what if the same is true of wargear, and intercessor bolt weapons are now all the 4-5pt range? That puts overall increase to Intercessors at almost 50% like Cultists, and means that any future point tweaks to those weapons have less substantial change relative to each other.

I'm gonna press x to doubt that the reason that Intercessors, the strongest troop unit in the game, seem OP in the new point costs is because there's secretly point costs on all their weapons and on sergeants.

new morale and new cover rules could greatly favor light troops over elite troops. That is, after all, how cover has worked for 7/8 editions of the game, and "best when hunkered down in cover holding objectives" is not a bad niche for light infantry to fill. It's certainly better than "They generate command points for some reason" or "you have to take them cus we say so, take your regulation 2-3 troops and Then you May Have Your Dessert"

but "it's gonna be real great for elite armies, it is one of our goals to shake up what's good and what's bad" does not inspire a TON of confidence that GW's actual intention is to create a game where all choices are valid choices for your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


don't tell anyone, but >.> <.<

One of the reasons we have such a frustratingly deadly game is because people bitch endlessly and get butthurt when they shoot a thing at a thing and the thing doesn't die.

And also...

one of the reasons every character seems super fething OP is because people bitch endlessly and get butthurt if anything kills their special little character guy, and they also do that if their special guy can't kill way bigger things than him.

Space marine captains can kill knights because of years of space marine players pouting and complaining when 75pt captains could not kill 150pt dreadnoughts or tank lascannons. And 1,000 voices cry out in pain and anguish any time a character assassinating unit is anywhere near efficient for their points.

Ok, stream is coming up.

Let's see how screwed horde armies really are...

1. Hill (raised bumpy thing). TLOS.
2. Obstacle (barriers, walls, barricades, crates, barrels).
3. Area terrain (ruins, woods, craters, swamps). Clearly defined footprint.
4. Buildings (units in your army, like Bastion, the Drill, etc.). These can be destroyed (the rest can't).

Terrain traits get added.

"Obscuring" - Scenery more than 5" tall, then you can't see through it (even if TLOS can).

"Dense Cover" and "Defensible" were mentioned. No details.

3 different kinds of cover - Dense Cover, Heavy Cover and Light Cover.

Railings on Sector Mechanicus - not great at stopping weapons.
Fortified buildings - much better.

To Hit and Save modifiers for different types of cover.

Lots of pictures showing off what terrain density should be for different sizes, giving a better idea for tournament/event organisers (and for regular players!).

And that's all. Nothing on moving through terrain. Nothing on TLOS (can you fire at the tip of a spike on the wing on my Hive Tyrant, even when behind "Obscuring" terrain?).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok, stream is coming up.

Let's see how screwed horde armies really are...

1. Hill (raised bumpy thing). TLOS.
2. Obstacle (barriers, walls, barricades, crates, barrels).
3. Area terrain (ruins, woods, craters, swamps). Clearly defined footprint.
4. Buildings (units in your army, like Bastion, the Drill, etc.).

Terrain traits get added.

"Obscuring" - Scenery more than 5" tall, then you can't see through it (even if TLOS can).

"Dense Cover" and "Defensible" were mentioned. No details.

Thanks for this, keep it up, trapped in a meeting I dare not mute

If they are following the AoS model, every upgrade will be included in the costs.

Sigmarines were their testing ground and now they can just outright make the changes.

What I will be interested in is seeing if we get kneeling Wraithlords again or minimum height requirements for TLOS.

Welp, that is it for terrain.

Not one single rule has been explained. They did say that terrain is "robust" about 4,000 times.

They said their main objective with terrain was to encourage movement, there are 12 different rules that can apply to 4 categories of terrain. The most in depth they got into was that one of those traits was "obscuring"

and "obscuring" is a rule that says you can't see through it even if you can see through it using TLOS. It was not clear whether this was a trait you just decide to apply to a terrain piece, or whether it is a rule that applies if any piece of scenery over 5" tall. They mentioned something about "5" tall" specifically, which was odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Help me warhammer communinobi, you are my only hope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The most interesting thing to me was:

"Dense Cover"

"Defensible"

Defensible is a way they could implement apoc-style "Embarkable' terrain. That would be a good thing, IMO. And "Dense Cover" could be the way they bring back old-style "cover saves" separate from your normal Save value.

Those leaks are pure frustration, just enough to make me not want top play 8th anymore, but not enough to get even the slightest idea of how 9th will really play.

Thanks HMBC for the transcription

They also hinted at dangerous and difficult terrain coming back as traits. At least said that a swamp would be terrain that would slow down your total movement.

Honestly what they've said about terrain sounds perfectly reasonable, but they're missing out on the other major factors of terrain:

Movement and Line of Sight.

I figure that the Terrain USRs ( ) will cover the movement side of things, but Line of Sight will determine whether this actually all works in practice. Being able to shoot something if you can see the tiniest sliver of it will continue to be a problem if banners/antennae/spikes/tails/etc. are not directly addressed by the rules.

There's also the question of LOS from within terrain. If I have area terrain that is obscuring, can I shoot out of it? Into it?

the_scotsman wrote:
They mentioned something about "5" tall" specifically, which was odd.

Not that odd. Sector Mechanicus and Sector Imperialis terrain is done in 5" tall sections.

Stu stated that you and your opponent decide what traits apply to what terrain piece after setting up the board.

I would assume that the 5" tall bit was specifically to avoid things like the barricades/Aegis Defense Lines from getting the Obscured trait, which was a huge issue in Age of Sigmar with regards to the Realm of Fire's traits that made it so that line of sight could not be drawn through/over terrain pieces and people would cheese it with the Walls and Fences.

So what's the breakdown of today's reveals? I missed the stream.

the_scotsman wrote:


and "obscuring" is a rule that says you can't see through it even if you can see through it using TLOS. It was not clear whether this was a trait you just decide to apply to a terrain piece

They were very clear that GW terrain has set traits in the rules. If it's home made terrain they have guidelines on what traits 'should' be used.

The 5" thing sounds like a distinction to mean small pieces don't obscure.

ie. GW terrain of Imperial ruin always has obscured as a trait (I have randomly decided this, for the example). But if one of your ruins is small (ie less than 5" high) then obscured will not actually do anything despite it being a trait on it.
That's my take anyway

 Eldarsif wrote:
They also hinted at dangerous and difficult terrain coming back as traits. At least said that a swamp would be terrain that would slow down your total movement.

The problem is, almost nothing they mentioned could not just be applied to the current terrain rules. We already have dangerous terrain, and terrain that technically slows your movement.

The problem with terrain in 8th is

1) it's super hard to actually cause terrain to impact your game (gak like every single model in the unit needing to be within 1" of a Barricade AND the barricade having to be closer to the firing model than every model in the target unit)

2) the benefit that terrain actually applies tends to feel supremely unimportant. Oh, great, my tank shot with a lascannon gets a 5+ instead of a 6+. He still failed. Oop, 6 damage out of my 10 hit points.

Darsath wrote:
So what's the breakdown of today's reveals? I missed the stream.

Literally scroll up.

Darsath wrote:
So what's the breakdown of today's reveals? I missed the stream.

Literally nothing. And it sounds like the WHC article is about Zoats. Lololololol. Horde players must be feeling soooooooo much better!

 Kanluwen wrote:
I would assume that the 5" tall bit was specifically to avoid things like the barricades/Aegis Defense Lines from getting the Obscured trait...

Or, more likely, because their two chief 40K terrain sets are built around mainly 5" tall pieces.

The Zoat article has been up for an hour or two. There's still an hour before the last article of the day.

The New40k articles are usually one of the last, if not the last ones of the day.

That one was really light on info. They talked a lot, but sure didn't say that much.

Hopefully the article provides more info.

the_scotsman wrote:
Literally nothing. And it sounds like the WHC article is about Zoats. Lololololol. Horde players must be feeling soooooooo much better!

It took 20 or so minutes for the blast weapon article to appear after the stream was done.

the_scotsman wrote:

Darsath wrote:
So what's the breakdown of today's reveals? I missed the stream.

Literally nothing. And it sounds like the WHC article is about Zoats. Lololololol. Horde players must be feeling soooooooo much better!

They've generally been doing 2 posts a day with one of them being a "regular" article and one being a 9th edition article, so the Zoats article doesn't mean we won't get a terrain article at some point soon. The 9th edition ones tend to go up around 4.00 - 4.30pm UK time.

 Sasori wrote:
That one was really light on info. They talked a lot, but sure didn't say that much.

You're describing every single one of these streams.

 Sasori wrote:
That one was really light on info. They talked a lot, but sure didn't say that much.

Hopefully the article provides more info.

Almost like this is a preview to give people a rough idea of what to expect, rather than someone reading a rulebook verbatim on stream!

 xttz wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
That one was really light on info. They talked a lot, but sure didn't say that much.

Hopefully the article provides more info.

Almost like this is a preview to give people a rough idea of what to expect, rather than someone reading a rulebook verbatim on stream!

The problem is that in previous streams, say, the blasts stream yesterday, they gave very concrete details of how Blasts work. Wheras with this stream, they just said how great and robust the terrain rules are, without actually telling anyone what any of them do. At all. Beyond, I suppose to be fair, the Obscuring thing they already mentioned, and something about some terrain giving to-hit modifiers.

 xttz wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
That one was really light on info. They talked a lot, but sure didn't say that much.

Hopefully the article provides more info.

Almost like this is a preview to give people a rough idea of what to expect, rather than someone reading a rulebook verbatim on stream!

The difference being that several of these streams have actually had a lot of info. The Vehicle/MC and Blast Streams just this week were very informative and provided very concrete details. This one did not, and it's especially glaring as this rule is going to have such a huge impact.

 Sasori wrote:
That one was really light on info. They talked a lot, but sure didn't say that much.

Hopefully the article provides more info.

They kinda just talked in circles about the same thing until they switched to talking about War of the Spider.

the_scotsman wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
That one was really light on info. They talked a lot, but sure didn't say that much.

Hopefully the article provides more info.

Almost like this is a preview to give people a rough idea of what to expect, rather than someone reading a rulebook verbatim on stream!

The problem is that in previous streams, say, the blasts stream yesterday, they gave very concrete details of how Blasts work. Wheras with this stream, they just said how great and robust the terrain rules are, without actually telling anyone what any of them do. At all. Beyond, I suppose to be fair, the Obscuring thing they already mentioned, and something about some terrain giving to-hit modifiers.

Sure but to be fair Blast is an incredibly focused rule, you're wanting details on terrain, which by all indications is a pretty sprawling topic covering lots of different areas. It's like expecting them to get really specific and cover every aspect of the Shooting phase in a single 30 minute stream.