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.

It could have been anything from this being planned or Stu not being able to do the show today. There is no reason to believe that there are no more rules previews...

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I can't speak for everyone but all I've been advocating is less snap judgements...

That article is so weird, and it's even weirder they're putting the words in the mouth of a supposedly top tournament player, when a lot of the advice is just so obviously bad. For example:

With the updated rules for Aircraft in the new edition, Necron Flyers will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground,

Um, move-blocking flyers will still very much be a thing, because they still can't land somewhere their base overlaps with the bases of any other model according to the rules we were given. The ability to move within 1" makes it substantially harder to move block with a flyer, but does comparatively little to make it harder to move block the flyer with other models. All you need to do is spread out your models so there's no room for a flyer's huge base to fit. The idea that you'll "no longer have to fear" having a flyer's movement blocked is the sort of thing that anyone who has played competitive 40k at all will immediately say "no, that's just wrong." Now if he had said "it will be slightly harder to move block flyers," that would be true. But the statement is such a ridiculous exaggeration that the person makes it loses a lot of credibility.

I suppose the other possibility is that the rules we have been given for aircraft are not accurate, and you actually can end a move on top of another model. But if they were going to do something that radical a departure from the basic rules of the game, wouldn't they have said so? And what a mess that would be too - talk about wobbly model syndrome.

Flyers can just elect to fly off the table instead if they're going to be move blocked on the table. It's very rare that a flyer can move and not be in range of a table edge if they're also in range of the opponent's models.

If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.

It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century. Yes, the same unit that was recently voted as the worst unit in all of 40k.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.

Losing a turn of shooting is an improvement over losing the model. It is definitely an improvement.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.

Losing a turn of shooting is an improvement over losing the model. It is definitely an improvement.

Yes, but it is simply not true to say that flyers "will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground." I dunno why you're arguing this. Nobody said it isn't an improvement, but the statement made is simply categorically wrong based on the rules we have been given.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century.

I genuinely laughed aloud when I clicked on that link and it opened the Obelisk page on Games workshop's website. In my mind I'm hoping it was meant to be ironic, but I think they were actually being serious.

 Leth wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.

A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.

I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.

I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.

My point is that because something can not possibly change by less than 25% that by presenting it solely as a percantage it paints a much more deceptive picture on the overall impact the change will have on the game/an army list when it’s points change.

10 cultists is 20 more points and 10 Intercessors are 30 more points, i could present it as intercessors went up by 50% more than cultists did” naturally everyone would call this a flawed presentation of the situation. Comparing two fundamentally different units in different books is fundamentally flawed from a balance perspective

no. if you are going absolute point value, you should compare the total point value.
21 cultists are 84 points
5 intercessors are 85 points

in 9th:
21 cultists are 126 points
5 interssecors are 100 points

cultists went up by 42 points, intercessors by 15 points....

because guess what? low point models are often fielded in large numbers... compensating for their low cost... thats why looking at the percentage value offers more insight then arbitary absolute numbers

 Leth wrote:
Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.

A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.

I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.

This is such a weird argument, because it literally defeats itself on this specific example. They could have raised cultists by 1 point, not 2, and that would have made the increase much closer to the increase in intercessors. But they didn't. So clearly the reason this increase is way out of step with the intercessor increase is not that that they simply couldn't increase it by any less than they did.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think it's a bit premature to assume no Necron mechanics are changing based on seeing the Dynastic code of a single tomb world.

On a dofferent note I think we can declare the "everything is going up 20%" claims that were being made when they did the initial points reveal dead and buried. Even if armies lose 200 points it looks like they aren't losing 20% of every unit universally.

And to the complaint about Necrons being more elite than Marines: that died in 5th when Necron Warriors went to a 4+ to make them play more differently than the more heavilly armoured Immortals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.

A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.

I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.

I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.

It was a 50% increase for the Cultist, and while they didn't move Intercessors that far we don't know how far other things moved. For all we know that's the smallest points shift for Primaris, or wargear will be seeing a points shift that covers the gap.

All I know is everytime I see the wild claims about ehat GW is doing wrong with 9th I start quoting Holmes: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

I just requite more clay before I start making bricks.

Literally no one on earth ever said that units were going up 20% across the board, uniformly. We as a community took the point increases we saw and determined that armies as a whole would likely go up around 20%, with the understanding that that would be A: On aggregate and B, different faction to faction. You're making up a thing that never happened.

If I wanted to make things up I'd work for Black Library. There were claims that Cultists were being unfairly targeted and 20% was the average for everyone else.

Meanwhile Necron Warriors moved 9% which throws any claims on how points costs were adjusted out the window.

You can pretend the "community" was acting as a hive mind on this but there was a.lot of hyperbolic claims being made when the points change was announced.

Honestly at this point I can imagine some skew lists migjt be unchanged.

Darsath wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century.

I genuinely laughed aloud when I clicked on that link and it opened the Obelisk page on Games workshop's website. In my mind I'm hoping it was meant to be ironic, but I think they were actually being serious.

Or, as I'm having to mention yet again, they playtesters are looking at their rules in the 9th ed codex? There is very obviously a new codex on the horizon, the obelisk might be a devastatingly powerful in the unit in the next book.

 Oguhmek wrote:
Huh, that was a bit underwhelming.

The canoptek thing looks great, but that buff is really weak. Not even an aura? This thing better be dirt cheap because I wouldn't pay many points for that +1 to one single unit.

And my Warriors have been pretty useless all 8th edition, can't see that they're any better now. That weapon is of little use - it's a rare thing that my Warriors have ever gotten to shoot at 18" before being wiped off the board.

The new models are lovely, but that article sadly didn't get me very excited to dust my Necrons off. If they would have updated RP they would surely have said something about it, right? Being kinda "the" thing making Necrons unique.

So many things here that we don't know, that while the reveal is rather spare, it's hard to tell if it is bad.

How expensive, dangerous, and resilient is the Canoptek Reanimator?
With cheaper warrior and more expensive other units, will Warriors still be summarily wiped off the board in 9th?
Any good stratagems in PA Pariah to help out the Warriors?
Will Reanimation Protocols change in either the Day 1 FAQ or the almost inevitable new codex?

Dudeface wrote:

Darsath wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It also says the Obelisk is a "devastatingly powerful unit," which has got to be the late April Fools joke of the century.

I genuinely laughed aloud when I clicked on that link and it opened the Obelisk page on Games workshop's website. In my mind I'm hoping it was meant to be ironic, but I think they were actually being serious.

Or, as I'm having to mention yet again, they playtesters are looking at their rules in the 9th ed codex? There is very obviously a new codex on the horizon, the obelisk might be a devastatingly powerful in the unit in the next book.

It literally says:

The Necrons are already blessed with a number of devastatingly powerful units,

You might not have to keep saying it if you'd check to make sure it's applicable first.

Now if they had said "old Necron models that are terrible currently are going to be improved into devastatingly powerful units," nobody would be laughing. It's the suggestion that the Obelisk is "already" a "devastatingly powerful unit" that is so funny.

Yes, you can try to parse it and say that "already" refers both to an already-existing model and to a hypothetical future 9th edition state of that model even though that's the opposite of the actual meaning of the word...but that's getting downright silly. GW done goofed, there's no need to try to find an angle to defend them on.

tneva82 wrote:
lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.

They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.

This is the single dumbest take that ever comes up. Most top end players don't have that string of preference for any one faction or playstyle. Sure, they have some they like more, but none of them are 'ur i love gunlins dur'. That's fethin stupid

Its got to the point where I think those that are engaging in the gross hyperbole and already writing things off should be forced to display their tournament accolades/win records so us people that don't really want to read pages and pages of this c**p can make an informed decision on who is actually liable to be correct and who is chatting utter bubbles because they revel in this obscene drama about plastic soldiers.

If anything, my sense is that top competitive players almost universally despise static gunlines that just roll dice to win. Competitive players like to play lists where they feel like they're winning, not their units or dice are winning.

That said, top competitive players and GW's playtesters are not the same group, and, most importantly of all, it isn't the playtesters that decide the rules. GW frequently simply overrules playtester feedback, as they infamously did with the IH supplement.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If anything, my sense is that top competitive players almost universally despise static gunlines that just roll dice to win. Competitive players like to play lists where they feel like they're winning, not their units or dice are winning.

That said, top competitive players and GW's playtesters are not the same group, and, most importantly of all, it isn't the playtesters that decide the rules. GW frequently simply overrules playtester feedback, as they infamously did with the IH supplement.

Are you a play tester?

No. Why would I need to be? Are you challenging the assertion that GW ignored playtester feedback on the IH supplement? They literally said so themselves in their own FAQ nerfing it. Were you unaware of this?

It's also hardly a secret that the GW rules team has had a checkered past with incorporating feedback from play testers in previous editions. Some of the play testers for 9th have even come out and basically said "guys, they're actually paying attention this time around." Which is good news. But not exactly an endorsement of past practice.

Cant wait to see what cost ork boyz are gonna be.

I'm hoping for 8, I bet they will be 10.

This is turning out to be the elite edition, at least from the start

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.

They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.

This is the single dumbest take that ever comes up. Most top end players don't have that string of preference for any one faction or playstyle. Sure, they have some they like more, but none of them are 'ur i love gunlins dur'. That's fethin stupid

We can say that, but remember Phil Kelly's codices proving biased writing can do just the same as biased playtesting.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
lol. You assume a) that playtesters are infallible b) they aren't driving their agenda. They are guys who have been turning with their house rules 8th ed toward pro marine gun lines, down for hordes.

They have their own agenda. They aren't interested in helping light infantry be useful seeing they have spent last years trying to get rid of those in tournaments. That pattern isn't going anywhere. It's about small units and solo models for them rather than light infantry.

This is the single dumbest take that ever comes up. Most top end players don't have that string of preference for any one faction or playstyle. Sure, they have some they like more, but none of them are 'ur i love gunlins dur'. That's fethin stupid

We can say that, but remember Phil Kelly's codices proving biased writing can do just the same as biased playtesting.

That was from an era where a single person was largely in charge of each book rather than a collaborative effort. The bias has gone down quite a bit in 8th since they moved to a committee approach.

On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.

40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.

For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.

 Latro_ wrote:
On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.

40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.

For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.

Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?

Well i'm pretty impressed by all the new necrons. Can't wait to see the rest. GW doing what GW does and I really can't complain.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.

40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.

For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.

Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?

Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.

40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.

For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.

Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?

Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.

Gogo Laibach? I mean, for the Imperium, obviously won't work for the eldars .

Kdash wrote:
Biggest issue with the article for me, isn't that it is lacking in rules for all the new Necron models, it is that they have the main section dedicated to "how they play in 9th edition" but then don't tell us how they will actually play in 9th ed.

Yeah no kidding.

Most of the article is complete waffling garbage:

"One of the biggest improvements for the Necrons is they’ll no longer be hurting for Command points (CPs)." - Cool. That has nothing to do with the Necrons. That's something everybody gets, and something we already know.

"Vehicles are already a mainstay of many Necron armies, but they’re about to get even better!" - Again, not a Necron thing, that's an everybody thing. We know this already.

"Mephrit Rules!" - ... haven't changed. Why are we being told this?

"With the updated rules for Aircraft in the new edition, Necron Flyers will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground, and they will also be able to move back onto the battlefield in a later turn should they leave combat airspace." - As above, this isn't a Necron thing. This is something that applies to everyone with flyers.

"Grand Illusion" - ... hasn't changed. Why are you highlighting rules we already know???

"Doom Scythe" - The preview for its gun is the same as what it has now, but finally we do get some confirmation of how a new role affects the Necrons. It has Blast.

"Necron Warriors" - Actual new information. Well done.

If this is what we can expect from future "What does #Nu40K mean for your army..." then the end result will be a resounding "We don't know. You didn't tell us anything!"

I mean why bother having a bunch of the play-testers write articles to spruik your new product if you're not actually going to let them discuss things that we don't already know, and aren't the most generic "This new rule benefits army X!" type of banal trivial page-filling generalities?

 Leth wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.

A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.

I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.

I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.

My point is that because something can not possibly change by less than 25% that by presenting it solely as a percantage it paints a much more deceptive picture on the overall impact the change will have on the game/an army list when it’s points change.

10 cultists is 20 more points and 10 Intercessors are 30 more points, i could present it as intercessors went up by 50% more than cultists did” naturally everyone would call this a flawed presentation of the situation. Comparing two fundamentally different units in different books is fundamentally flawed from a balance perspective

Isn't the whole purpose of points to allow you to compare different units in different books? One went up by 25% and the other by a lot less. I don't see how that's deceptive. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Latro_ wrote:
On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.

40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.

For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.

Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?

Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.

Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).