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.

PiñaColada wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So, we know that there are 7 core strategems now. If we assume the original ones don't change, then we have:

Old

1. Reroll a die.
2. Interrupt combat order.
3. Auto-pass morale.

New:

4. Cut Them Down
5. Fire Overwatch
6. ??
7. ??


I could see one of them being a Fall Back strategem. I know that we think it isn't because they've referenced Falling Back more than once, but we can hope. I think we've also heard that one of them could be Falling Back through models. Of course, the original 3 are subject to change as well.

Prepared positions is most likely still around

Good Catch, although it may be absorbed into the mission rules, or unnecessary because of other rules we don't know about yet (Night Fight?)

I like the terrain rules with defending them.

Plaguebearers don't shoot and they are mostly used as objective holders. So I park my plaguebearers behind cover, hopefully on an objective, and i choose to hold steady.

I now hit on 3's in melee instead of 4's and reroll on wound rolls and i can buff them more with spells and characters.

I like how you can choose, depending on the units abilities, how you want to defend an objective.

As a Daemon player I like the changes to overwatch. Taking Khorne or Slaanesh Daemons against IW or Tau, two armies that have insane overwatch, was never fun because Daemonettes especially need lots of bodies to make the most of their rending attacks. Every Daemonette lost to OW shooting hurts.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

I didn't mean that, I meant how they mentioned on the stream there were other ways to get overwatch too.

I expect to see a base warlord trait: 'Tactical Genius: one unit with x" of this model can fire overwatch for free this round'
And eventually a 'divination type psychic power: Warp Charge X: grant a unit overwatch until the start of your next turn.

That's the kind of thing I expect they're talking about.

Maybe. I kinda got the impression they meant the rules that let you overwatch on a 5+ now would maybe just become "everyone gets overwatch; if they already have overwatch, now they hit on one higher than they otherwise would," and that other units would just get overwatch as a keyword.

How does choosing to flee from close combat work in 8th?

It can't be a 'free' action, is it?

Does the other side get "free hacks" or something similar?

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
How does choosing to flee from close combat work in 8th?

It can't be a 'free' action, is it?

Does the other side get "free hacks" or something similar?

It's free in 8th with no attacks. There is wargear and relics that can force units to stay in combat, but that's still pretty light in the game at the moment.

9th is shaking things up though and we haven't seen how that works yet.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."

Sure, they could. But why, if the plan is to always restrict it that way? Makes no sense. Just have it in the base rule.

It also makes it impossible to include simply as a keyword.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."

Sure, they could. But why, if the plan is to always restrict it that way? Makes no sense. Just have it in the base rule.

It also makes it impossible to include simply as a keyword.

Depends on how universal they decide to make it.

Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."

Sure, they could. But why, if the plan is to always restrict it that way? Makes no sense. Just have it in the base rule.

It also makes it impossible to include simply as a keyword.

Scalability and flexibility I'd say. If they want someone to have that function it's easier to add it to a bespoke rule than remove it from a universal one. Narrower ramifications, smaller area of impact from any changes.

Makes sense to me. In coding you try to build upon a base class with child classes when you want new functionality, ideally you don't change the base class at all.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

They made it unlimited in that Crusade rule, so it's not impossible that it can be an upgrade, but I have a feeling they may curb it more for matched play.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

I didn't mean that, I meant how they mentioned on the stream there were other ways to get overwatch too.

Based on what they said, I would not be at all surprised to see a fair number of units just get overwatch as a base rule, for free, with no one per phase limitation. And for faction traits and that sort of thing to give it to your entire army as well.

They could also simply allow those units to use the overwatch strat for 0 CP like the GSC sanctus rule. Or they could have a rule allowing them to overwatch with +1 to hit, or to overwatch for another unit being charged, or to join in. It doesn't have to necessarily mean units will get free unlimited OW like in 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So, we know that there are 7 core strategems now. If we assume the original ones don't change, then we have:

Old

1. Reroll a die.
2. Interrupt combat order.
3. Auto-pass morale.

New:

4. Cut Them Down
5. Fire Overwatch
6. ??
7. ??


I could see one of them being a Fall Back strategem. I know that we think it isn't because they've referenced Falling Back more than once, but we can hope. I think we've also heard that one of them could be Falling Back through models. Of course, the original 3 are subject to change as well.

Prepared positions is most likely still around

Good Catch, although it may be absorbed into the mission rules, or unnecessary because of other rules we don't know about yet (Night Fight?)

I bet it's strategic reserves. They mentioned in passing that everyone would put units in reserves with CP if I recall. So that's most likely all 7 with prepared positions.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

Right, which was my original point. They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes, because they built the rule that way. This change may end up being a bit fat nothing if overwatch is thrown around liberally elsewhere. For all we know, the stratagem is going to end up just as mocked as the "cut them down" one they revealed a few days ago.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

Right, which was my original point. They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes, because they built the rule that way. This change may end up being a bit fat nothing if overwatch is thrown around liberally elsewhere. For all we know, the stratagem is going to end up just as mocked as the "cut them down" one they revealed a few days ago.

I get the cynicism and lack of faith when it comes to GW, but sometimes you honestly do have to take the win while it's in front of you. I am positive by the end of the 9th books some doctrine will grant free overwatch or something absurd, but with GW there really isn't much you can do with creep. It's just a pill you swallow to play their games. Not saying it shouldn't be mocked, but it hasn't changed in 9 editions so it's unlikely to ever go away. But as of right now, it appears as though they are aware of how loathed OW really is as a mechanic, but they kind of have to throw a bone out there for the few armies that kind of were known for it recently, like T'au.

You’re jumping to a conclusion.

Overwatch as a rule simply suggests the associated Stratagem won’t be the only source of the ability.

That by absolutely no means equates to it’s going to be otherwise unlimited.

 Alpharius wrote:
How does choosing to flee from close combat work in 8th?

It can't be a 'free' action, is it?

Does the other side get "free hacks" or something similar?

It is very cheap: the fleeing unit give up being able to shoot or charge on the turn they disengage. Except if they fly, or a bunch of other exceptions...

 Red Corsair wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

Right, which was my original point. They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes, because they built the rule that way. This change may end up being a bit fat nothing if overwatch is thrown around liberally elsewhere. For all we know, the stratagem is going to end up just as mocked as the "cut them down" one they revealed a few days ago.

I get the cynicism and lack of faith when it comes to GW, but sometimes you honestly do have to take the win while it's in front of you. I am positive by the end of the 9th books some doctrine will grant free overwatch or something absurd, but with GW there really isn't much you can do with creep. It's just a pill you swallow to play their games. Not saying it shouldn't be mocked, but it hasn't changed in 9 editions so it's unlikely to ever go away. But as of right now, it appears as though they are aware of how loathed OW really is as a mechanic, but they kind of have to throw a bone out there for the few armies that kind of were known for it recently, like T'au.

Agreed. Why focus on the negative possibilities when we've got what's on it's surface a great new way to handle the OW mechanic that largely addresses the main complaints people had with it?

Seems a reason to celebrate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You’re jumping to a conclusion.

Overwatch as a rule simply suggests the associated Stratagem won’t be the only source of the ability.

That by absolutely no means equates to it’s going to be otherwise unlimited.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion. What I said was: "we don't know if this will end up being significant or not. The rule doesn't prohibit unlimited overwatch from other sources. Only the strat is limited."

That is literally the opposite of jumping to a conclusion, mate.

Yukoshiro1 wrote: They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes,

That’s perhaps not what you meant, but ifs what you typed.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You’re jumping to a conclusion.

Overwatch as a rule simply suggests the associated Stratagem won’t be the only source of the ability.

That by absolutely no means equates to it’s going to be otherwise unlimited.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion. What I said was: "we don't know if this will end up being significant or not. The rule doesn't prohibit unlimited overwatch from other sources. Only the strat is limited."

That is literally the opposite of jumping to a conclusion, mate.

They literally said that free overwatch is rare and far between? Or am I missing something here?

did this one get posted yet?

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:


did this one get posted yet?

yeah and from the sound of it we're trying to cure the instant depression that rule has caused among dakkanauts.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:


did this one get posted yet?

Yes, applies to Crusades only, as far as we know.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Yukoshiro1 wrote: They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes,

That’s perhaps not what you meant, but ifs what you typed.

I think you may be confused about what was being discussed. I was pointing out that the rule allows for overwatch that is not limited to once per unit per phase - in other words, that is unlimited. Limited vs unlimited is being used to denote the difference between being able to fire overwatch only at a single unit, or at an unlimited amount of units per phase.

It is not jumping to any conclusion to say that they obviously intended to allow for some unlimited overwatch through the wording of the rule. The example they gave - the crusade thing - is literally an example of unlimited overwatch. If someone writes a rule in a way that doesn't make sense unless they intended to make something possible, and then they give you an example of that exact thing, it isn't jumping to a conclusion to say: "they intended to allow this thing in some circumstances."

 Alpharius wrote:
It's admittedly been a while since I played a game of 40K...

How was trying to escape from close combat handled in 7th and 8th?

And is it really going to be a 'free pass' out of CC in 9th?

Given how shooty 40K is overall, and how shooty 8th is and 9th looks to be?

As ClockworkZion as said, in 8th falling back is completely free as long as your models can move away without being within 1" of any enemy models (so surrounded units can't fall back). There are an increasing number of units that have abilities to stop enemy units from falling back without surrounding them, most are in the Daemons codex but Drukhari Wyches can do that via a roll off as well.

7th handled it really, really badly. You basically had to voluntarily fail a moral check and fall back, which means attempting to regroup at the end of the phase or fall back again, potentially running off the board if you can't regroup in time. And of course your opponent would roll off with you to Sweeping Advance, if they won then your unit was wipped out. However, if your unit was Fearless or had ATSKNF then you couldn't even chose to do that, you were just stuck in combat regardless of whether it was even physically possible to hurt your opponent or not. 7th ed could be pure cancer at times.

It's funny how GW went from a terrible fallback mechanic in 7th to an equally terrible, but polar opposite fallback mechanic in 8th.

It shows the enduring optimism of players that after two editions that were both terrible in totally different ways, people are hopeful that this time, they'll get it right.

 EnTyme wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.

Yes, you can do that if you feel that the product is not worth the price. It is called 'not playing the game,' instead of advocating piratism like you have done in the past.

Why shouldn't it be advocated? With the amount of crap they release without testing or proofreading or the sloppiness it's presented in...it should be free to begin with. Patches are already not free AND we have people defending that here! You can't call that anything but being a white Knight.

Well, for starters, it's illegal. It's also against forum rules to advocate for piracy.

I'm not advocating Piracy per se, and if this opinion I express that's related to the subject is against the rules I apologise. That disclaimer aside, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the concept. Me personally I spend £1000s a year on GW minis because I like them and they're great quality imo, though arguably not good value in some sense (subjective). And you see exactly what you're getting, which makes it a completely informed choice for the buyer. BL books though, for me, are a different matter entirely. I've been burned so many times by the varying quality of BL output (ranging from excellent to dire) that I don't trust them and I decided a long time ago that I wouldn't spend any more money on shoddy product that I had to buy on faith. I will, however, download free books, give them a shot and, 90% of the time, delete them after 20 minutes. Occasionally I'll find a good author that I really like, and then buy the legit copy of their next book (Chris Wraight recently, for example). So they do get money from me for goods that they've provided and that I consume. The ripoffs that I sample then delete? They were never going to get money from me for that, and I didn't get anything from them for free either.

Now, this is not quite the same as pirating a rule book, using it to the full extent, and thereby depriving them of a sale whilst still gaining from the act. But it's definitely in the same ballpark. So no, whilst I'm not saying it's right steal their IP and gain w/o compensating the creator, I do have some sympathy with the concept. I'll rip a book, test it, usually find it to be sub-par, and discard it. They're lost nothing and neither have I. And on the rare occasions I find something worthy, they've made no money from me on that but they have secured future sales on the basis that I'm now informed and don't feel like a mark. Again, apologies if this is not allowed to be expressed, like I say I'm not advocating piracy of material that a person will be utilising for free, but philosophically I don't see it as a strictly immoral to discover whether a product is worth paying for by trying it for free. Finally, (sorry for the long post, probably totally OT), but this has me thinking - what's the process for returning a book that you've partially read, found to be lacking, and getting a refund? (This is basically a more inconvenient and inefficient version of what I do, but I'd be interested to know whether it's possible).

Gentle reminder that this thread is about 9th edition, new Necrons, and new Marines, please take discussions regarding piracy and IP issues to other venues, thanks!

And if you don't want to pay for books before reading them, support your local library.