40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

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.

**Ghaz**

tneva82 wrote:
Latro_ wrote:
But they have a new codex coming... RP might work if all dead.. heck they might of changed it so it's like fnp.

Could be like fnp 6+ and depending how many chars you have on the board or other conditions etc give a plus to that

Maybe. We'll see. Even if all dead works has it's own issues though. If there's no qualficiations it's basically if you go 2nd you are virtually 100% quaranteed to have all your infantry units standing at the end. So either you are bleeding kill points like no tomorrow(unit dies, you get VP, some come back alive, they are killed again, more vp's) or they kill no vp's basically(because unit i always alive at the end).

FNP would be more feasible but 5+++ is kind of DG material. That makes the 2 armies maybe too close.

But yeah it's possible it changes. That's the big Q for necrons.

Being able to allow a unit to use Reanimation Protocols after that unit has been destroyed sounds like it would be a special rule right up the Canoptek Reanimator's alley.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Ghaz wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Latro_ wrote:
But they have a new codex coming... RP might work if all dead.. heck they might of changed it so it's like fnp.

Could be like fnp 6+ and depending how many chars you have on the board or other conditions etc give a plus to that

Maybe. We'll see. Even if all dead works has it's own issues though. If there's no qualficiations it's basically if you go 2nd you are virtually 100% quaranteed to have all your infantry units standing at the end. So either you are bleeding kill points like no tomorrow(unit dies, you get VP, some come back alive, they are killed again, more vp's) or they kill no vp's basically(because unit i always alive at the end).

FNP would be more feasible but 5+++ is kind of DG material. That makes the 2 armies maybe too close.

But yeah it's possible it changes. That's the big Q for necrons.

Being able to use Reanimation Protocols on a unit that's been destroyed sounds like it would be right up the Canoptek Reanimator's alley.

That was the Spyders ability in 3-4th.

**Grimgold**

tneva82 wrote:

If gw thinks there's multiple ways to mitigate rp they haven"t even read necron rules. There's 1. Wipe unit. That makes rp useless.

You can also re-spawn block the unit, because returning units can't be placed within 1" of enemy models and must be in unit cohesion with surviving models, so if you surround the survivors they can't come back. There is also morale, units lost to the morale phase can't be returned via RP. Also there is a deathwatch stratagem that gives a -1 to RP. II feel like I'm forgetting one, oh yes, units lost in TWD can't reanimate. So five total ways to stop RP, but wiping the unit is generally easier.

**Khorzain**

The way they were talking about making Reanimation Protocols constant and consistent — I wouldn't be surprised if they made it so a small number models are guaranteed to be reanimated every turn, maybe in addition to the normal RP rolls.
They could make it vary based on unit size, similar to how they made Blast weapons affect units based on the number of models.

**Kanluwen**

Are there any units in the Necron army right now which modify the RP rolls or amounts brought back?

I could see them giving a few units rules like the Idoneth's "Soulrender", who rolls a D3 to return slain Namarti(up to the value of the roll) to their units with a +1 to the roll for each enemy model slain by the Soulrender's Talunhook. There might be a relic or subfaction benefit adding a flat number to the returned rolls as well as what the roll was.

**Khorzain**

Kanluwen wrote:
Are there any units in the Necron army right now which modify the RP rolls or amounts brought back?

I could see them giving a few units rules like the Idoneth's "Soulrender", who rolls a D3 to return slain Namarti(up to the value of the roll) to their units with a +1 to the roll for each enemy model slain by the Soulrender's Talunhook. There might be a relic or subfaction benefit adding a flat number to the returned rolls as well as what the roll was.

The new Canoptek Reanimator adds +1 to RP rolls, Crypteks and Illuminor Szeras have the Technomancer ability that adds +1 to the roll as well. I don't think there's anything that increases the amount of models brought back though.

**ClockworkZion**

There is always the chance that the roll might directly bring models back. We'll have to wait and see though since they won't show us the updated version until they do their codex launch sometimes after 9th drops.

**H.B.M.C.**

Uhh... these faction focus articles are so useless.

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"Thanks to the Big Guns Never Tire rule, all of our vehicles will be able to shoot accurately on the move and even in combat."

In other words, "This general rule that every gets also impacts our units!!! WOW!".

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"Another change that Space Marines benefit from is the addition of Blast weapons..."

In other words, "This general rule that every gets also impacts our units!!! WOW!".

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"An important thing to remember is that with the next generation of missions in the new edition, you can select secondary objectives that your army is more suited to achieving."

In other words, "This general rule that every gets also impacts our units!!! WOW!".

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"By using the revamped terrain rules to limit the number of enemy units that can shoot at your army, you can focus on pouring your efforts into achieving the objectives."

What this has to do with Marines specifically is beyond me...

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"This strategy works very effectively with Space Marines, as they can use their speed, flexibility and hitting power to apply maximum force to specific areas of the battlefield."

By using your army you can complete objectives! WOW!

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"When I’m playing Space Marines, I like to take the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too approach as much as possible (who doesn’t, honestly?). What this means on the tabletop is maximizing the amount of damage I can do to my opponent while limiting their ability to do hurt me in return."

OMG... is that how you play 40k? I was running my units around in circles, hiding all my long-ranged stuff behind LOS blocking terrain, and flapping my arms whilst making chicken noises at random passers by.

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"I accomplish this by using... reserve units (using the new Strategic Reserves rules or otherwise keeping them protected) and terrain. It’s easier than ever to hide units behind buildings, helping to keep troops safe and ensuring they get great use out of weapons that ignore line of sight. Meanwhile, reserve units offer flexible deployment and the ability to deliver damage right where they’re needed."

In other words, "I do this by using the New Rules™ that everyone can also use! WOW!".

Bloody hell...

**Hankovitch**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Uhh... these faction focus articles are so useless.

It's not like he's allowed to say, "the entire game is set up so that I have the upper hand in every situation without having to make tough choices or sacrifice any part of my army's potential. I bought the Best Book, and that's how I plan to win!"

**ClockworkZion**

Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now

**Voss**

Hankovitch wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Uhh... these faction focus articles are so useless.

It's not like he's allowed to say, "the entire game is set up so that I have the upper hand in every situation without having to make tough choices or sacrifice any part of my army's potential. I bought the Best Book, and that's how I plan to win!"

No but they could relate aspects of the factions they're talking about to the 9th edition changes that have already been revealed. What's in store for the Necrons in the command phase, how do SM flyers particularly benefit from the aircraft rule, how various 'stealth' rules interact with the new cover system, etc.
Instead we get told of a few weapons that obviously get blast, and a new statline for a new gun or unit (which will apply to exactly zero factions going forward, as we know of nothing new past the boxed set stuff).

These are theoretically faction articles for the new edition, and they're mostly talking about stuff people already know from 2019 or even earlier.

**Kurgash**

Incredibly excited from today’s daily stream. Reanimation Protocols being overhauled to allow players to get models back more vs the issue on being heavily mitigated this edition. Play styles of order of execution conducting war and variety how each dynasty does so.

Hopefully it’ll wash out the bland taste 8th left in my mouth.

**Eldarain**

On the plus side it's almost time for the cringe worthy attempt to make the Word Bearers trait sound like something worth choosing. Always a highlight.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/05/legion-focus-word-bearers-aug-5gw-homepage-post-2/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/21/21st-mar-heretic-astartes-focus-the-word-bearersgw-homepage-post-1/

**Slayer-Fan123**

I tried to forget about that, thanks.

**Wakshaani**

Wonder if they're changing the Reanimation Protocols to just being "The unit recovers 1D6 wounds in your Command Phase" … the +1 modifiers would still work, just in a different way, and this would fall into their "reliable" concept.

Have some abilities to doublediip, rolling an extra D3 or D6, or some "Once per game, regain 6 wounds instead of rolling" tech or strat.

It's possible...

**yukishiro1**

Maybe they're changing the reanimation protocols to be:

Roll 1D6 for each slain Necron. On a 6, the necron respawns as a Primaris Intercessor.

**H.B.M.C.**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now

Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?

If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.

**yukishiro1**

I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank, mate.

The purpose is to "generate interactions." This is 2020 marketing. It doesn't matter whether the interactions are positive or not. It's all about getting people talking on social media. Doesn't mater whether it's positive or negative.

**Ghaz**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?

If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.

Because they're for new players or those considering starting an army that they're unfamiliar with.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Sasori wrote:
Here is a more updated transcript for the Necron side of things from Today's stream:

stream highlights:
-Redesigning necron models provided insight into how GW wants necrons to play, both in strengths and weaknesses
-GW want to play up the horror aesthetic with the new necrons
-Reanimation Protocols have been given a big overhaul
-Right now there are a lot of ways to mitigate RP. GW wants to make it so bringing back your units is constant and consistent
-Canoptek Reanimator uses it's nano-scarab beam to break down and reconstruct necron units. For enemies, it's just the break down part.
-New necron codex has a lot of emphasis on being broken down and getting back up again.
-"A relentless, grinding playstyle" with a mid-field shooting emphasis
-Command phase will prompt decisions for in what way necron units should reanimate. The player should be responsible more making the decisions, they are the overlord
-"Dynastic noble" aesthetic will still exist with the triarch units
-While necrons do have fast units, they want necrons to be slow and methodical, with lots of firepower
-"100% more guns"
-Necrons will get other army-wide rules besides Reanimation Protocols
-Necrons main weakness is their speed. They also want necrons to use more infantry than vehicles

Thanks you very much for the summary, quite appreciated!

**Mentlegen324**

Am I missing something, or do the new Primaris Raider-pattern combat bikes have absolutely no way to aim their weapons? They seem fixed to the front armour and locked in position facing forwards, with no noticable way to move them. The previous design had them fixed to the front of the handlebars so it would still have them aiming the same direction the Bike is going, but at least with the previous version that would presumably offer a bit more control to it.

**yukishiro1**

Mentlegen324 wrote:
Am I missing something, or do the new Primaris Raider-pattern combat bikes have absolutely no way to aim their weapons? They seem fixed to the front armour and locked in position facing forwards, with no noticable way to move them. The previous design had them fixed to the front of the handlebars so it would still have them aiming the same direction the Bike is going, but at least with the previous version that would presumably offer a bit more control to it.

They don't need a way to aim, they're Space Marines. The chapter master reroll hit aura bends space and time to put the enemy in the path of every bullet fired by a space marine, automatically.

**ClockworkZion**

yukishiro1 wrote:
Maybe they're changing the reanimation protocols to be:

Roll 1D6 for each slain Necron. On a 6, the necron respawns as a Primaris Intercessor.

Not going to lie, you had us in the first half.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?

If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.

To dripfeed info while generating clicks would be my guess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank, mate.

The purpose is to "generate interactions." This is 2020 marketing. It doesn't matter whether the interactions are positive or not. It's all about getting people talking on social media. Doesn't mater whether it's positive or negative.

I stand by this being the reason they're so cagey with real information. If we understand the game we're less invested about the news and the hype will die off. Better to keep the pot boiling so we keep engaged.

**Marshal Loss**

Necron information from the stream sounds great. Hope they've done us a solid on this one

**NinthMusketeer**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?

If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.

People who have not read the previous articles would find them reasonably informative, and people are extremely good at misremembering things which aren't told to them repeatedly. Don't get me wrong--I am not a fan of the article either, but I can understand the 'why' of it.

What particularly irks me is how so much of it reads along the lines of 'this is why Space Marines are better than other armies, this is why these particular units are better than your other unit options' which is the exact opposite mentality of what I want to see. There is a subtle but extremely important difference between that and 'this is what Space Marines are particularly good at, these are units that have particularly notable interactions with new rules.'

**H.B.M.C.**

I guess my issue is the same issue I have with GW most of the time: They are always wasting their potential, squandering good ideas and taking one step sideways rather than one step forward (except for their prices, obviously; they're always ready and eager to step forward with those).

**BrianDavion**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?

If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.

People who have not read the previous articles would find them reasonably informative, and people are extremely good at misremembering things which aren't told to them repeatedly. Don't get me wrong--I am not a fan of the article either, but I can understand the 'why' of it.

What particularly irks me is how so much of it reads along the lines of 'this is why Space Marines are better than other armies, this is why these particular units are better than your other unit options' which is the exact opposite mentality of what I want to see. There is a subtle but extremely important difference between that and 'this is what Space Marines are particularly good at, these are units that have particularly notable interactions with new rules.'

GW's always been like that though, and the guy writing the article is a play tester yes but he's also a tourny goer, so it's not like he's saying anything we don't know already, space marines are an amazing army in 8th and 9th edition gives them some fun new stuff.

do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?

**Voss**

BrianDavion wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?

If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.

People who have not read the previous articles would find them reasonably informative, and people are extremely good at misremembering things which aren't told to them repeatedly. Don't get me wrong--I am not a fan of the article either, but I can understand the 'why' of it.

What particularly irks me is how so much of it reads along the lines of 'this is why Space Marines are better than other armies, this is why these particular units are better than your other unit options' which is the exact opposite mentality of what I want to see. There is a subtle but extremely important difference between that and 'this is what Space Marines are particularly good at, these are units that have particularly notable interactions with new rules.'

GW's always been like that though, and the guy writing the article is a play tester yes but he's also a tourny goer, so it's not like he's saying anything we don't know already, space marines are an amazing army in 8th and 9th edition gives them some fun new stuff.

do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?

Pretty sure he said what he wanted- that they should talk about notable interactions with the new rules (and I totally agree). The articles are intended as 9th edition previews after all...

**Argive**

Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing day. As in we saw the power creep and bloat.. we noticed the power creep and bloat. Buuuuut then we decided to keep the power creep and the blaot.

I like how pretty much all of the marines/necron previews were highlighting stuff they already have shown us.

This suggest we pretty much seen the main core changes. reverse CP generation, a command phase, and ITC terrain rules.

**gorgon**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?

If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.

Maybe they aren’t aimed at Warhammer lifers and pro athletes who demand all the details, but more casual players looking for an excuse to pick up the new shiny.

The article before the lockdown about ursus claws included an important mistake about how they operate in AT. I chuckled, but it wasn’t something to get bent out of shape about.