Switch Theme:

40k 9th edition, : App released page 413  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet


Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 16:05:36


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 buddha wrote:
Some new 9th rules snuck into the sisters faction focus.

- Charges have to be able to reach ALL declared targets or the charge fails.

- Complete rewording of the Character rule to give more clarity and less protection when you have few models.

Yup. Looks good all round.
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.


Oh finally, they changed it to something sensible. Should have been like that to begin with.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 puma713 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.

Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.


Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.

You folk are ridiculous.


You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.

We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.
   
Made in gb
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut





UK

yea this is an interesting one for chars that spam out that 6" aura.

gotta keep a unit within 3" of them or they are getting squashed. Will have the effect of bringing in aura'ed units closer because you cant afford to just have one in 3" to stop ye char getting targetted as your opponent will mince that unit first chance he gets

 
   
Made in us
RogueSangre





The Cockatrice Malediction

The changes to both Blast weapons and morale favour armies that field medium-sized units.

So according to this guy, changes to morale are going to penalize large units. I'm sure there's another as-yet-unrevealed reason cultists went up so much, right? Gotta wait and see!
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




SistersArticle wrote:In the new edition, I’ll be approaching the Sisters of Battle with more use of multiple small units. The changes to both Blast weapons and morale favour armies that field medium-sized units. I previously used larger units, but now with the benefit of playing smaller, more sensibly sized squads, I’ll have some points left to take other units – more Dedicated Transports, maybe even the Mortifiers I always wanted but couldn’t quite fit in.


Didn't sisters already want MSU spam? That seemed the primary way to play since the codex came out last year (not this year, as the author seems to believe)


---
I'm also very confused by the 'alternate color schemes' article.

None of those are alternate color schemes. Not one. They're official color schemes for other chapters and dynasties. Just, in the case of the necrons, small ones no one cares about. Except Sautekh.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 16:16:22


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I still think 9 wounds is a little high, I'd have capped it at 6 to just cover human sized things. Or specified that this rule only applied to infantry, and that characters of other types need another of that type (so monster/vehicle/battlesuit) for Look Out Sir to kick in.

Still doesn't seem right that you'd ignore a Daemon prince when there's some cultists (or nurglings!) around it, or not notice the Lord on a Command Barge as being something different from the warriors infront of it.
Plus it'd give a bit more protection to things like Hive Tyrants and Lord Discordants, if they are in the middle of a big pack of monsters.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 16:15:42


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.

Biggest concern, for me, is that wording at the start.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Voss wrote:
SistersArticle wrote:In the new edition, I’ll be approaching the Sisters of Battle with more use of multiple small units. The changes to both Blast weapons and morale favour armies that field medium-sized units. I previously used larger units, but now with the benefit of playing smaller, more sensibly sized squads, I’ll have some points left to take other units – more Dedicated Transports, maybe even the Mortifiers I always wanted but couldn’t quite fit in.


Didn't sisters already want MSU spam? That seemed the primary way to play since the codex came out last year (not this year, as the author seems to believe)

Infantry MSU sure. But the author talked about a mixed Mech list which wasn't really a thing for Sisters in 8th.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.


Oh finally, they changed it to something sensible. Should have been like that to begin with.

And any other effort they put into discouraging castles is now completely wasted.

   
Made in gb
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut





UK

Telling you all now, every rule i see come out makes me think this is the mech edition.


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





 Kanluwen wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.

Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.


Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.

You folk are ridiculous.


You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.

We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.


This enforces pretty much why I can never take you seriously. Tell me, how useful is that strat going to be for someone running away from a dreadnought, or 5 Deathwing Knights or 10 banshees, etc, etc. You're seriously going to spend 1CP to hope you roll 6's, and maybe kill 1 or 2 guardsmen, etc. The fact that higher number of grots are more dangerous to run away from that a single knight is stupid.
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







 Kanluwen wrote:



You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.

We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.


I would be a game changer if it said "If the unit takes any casualties from Cut Them Down it cannot Fall Back".

Since it doesn't, it just makes you look like someone who thinks 1-2 MW are a big deal, ie. someone not worth listening to.

The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins. 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

The Newman wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.


Oh finally, they changed it to something sensible. Should have been like that to begin with.

And any other effort they put into discouraging castles is now completely wasted.


How? The earlier character rule didn't discourage castles either. It just resulted in gamey nonsense where you couldn't shoot a lone character who was out in the open because there was a single infantry model some foot away that happened to be closer to the firing squad and was out of line of sight, so it couldn't be a legal target.

Now you actually need to protect your characters instead of having him go for a walk in the backlines.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

The Newman wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.


Oh finally, they changed it to something sensible. Should have been like that to begin with.

And any other effort they put into discouraging castles is now completely wasted.

Not really. The shorter range fixes some more gamey elements (like having a unit out of LoS across the board from, but still physically closer than, a character).

If anything it means people need to be more careful how the remove casualties lest they open a character up to be shot at.

And castling existed without this "justification" so it's not like that changed.
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan






 Kanluwen wrote:

"Cut Them Down" ...


Once more 9E-compatible faction rules start appearing i fully expect to see unit- or weapon-specific traits that affect this stratagem. Much like how some units can still trigger overwatch on 5+, you could easily see specialist units doing the same with Cut Them Down. Lash Whips anyone?
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Latro_ wrote:
Telling you all now, every rule i see come out makes me think this is the mech edition.



That and elite. As i have said gw is as subtle as nuke about it.

And i'm starting to suspect therion either has seen 9th ed whole thing or knows somebody who has

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.

Biggest concern, for me, is that wording at the start.


Why? Characters are already units.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant






Hmm, the math hammer must surely make sense to have MSU surrounding a character, but surely that actually makes a character easier to snipe than larger units?

Assuming split fire is still a thing, if a character is surrounded by 6x 5 man squads, you need to kill 3 models in each unit, so 18 in total (saying split fire as you will want to split fire at times to maybe whittle down the last model in one unit and dedicate the rest to another squad which would be necessary when killing MSU's in such a situation you would presume).

For if they are surrounded by 3x 10 man squads, you need to kill 24 models to snipe the character. Whilst the larger unit is a bigger problem for morale purposes, the character will survive without being shot that turn, whilst in the first scenario, the character can get sniped.

Unless my reading of the rules and/or maths is off there....

I suppose another tactic will be to have more heavy duty units by characters with high defence that can act as their body guard to absorb the firepower before being whittled down.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 16:22:15


My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

the_scotsman wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.

Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.


Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.


I don't because you could not fall back in 5th. Didn't exist as a voluntary action.


What am I remembering? If you lost combat and then you failed morale, you fled, and then the enemy had a chance to cut them down?

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

Regarding the Cut Them Down. I would have preferred an inverse overwatch.

Basically a free melee activation, but without pile in nor consolidation and that only hits on 6s.
   
Made in gb
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut





UK

yea its actually a weirdly good sentence as it covers units of 1+ characters and weird units where they have body guards that are not characters.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/18 16:26:00


 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

Voss wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.

Biggest concern, for me, is that wording at the start.


Why? Characters are already units.


Yeah, there's no concern here.
Its just to cover units that have a character + follower, like Big Meks who can take oilers.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






So, Celestine isn't bodyguarded by her bodyguards anymore.

Court of the Archon is useless now.

Wonderful. I didn't realise GW could sink even lower down the barrel of crap rules writing.
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 puma713 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.

Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.


Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.


I don't because you could not fall back in 5th. Didn't exist as a voluntary action.


What am I remembering? If you lost combat and then you failed morale, you fled, and then the enemy had a chance to cut them down?


That was Sweeping Advance. It existed up until 7th ed.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





As someone else pointed out in a harlequins group....so a Solitaire really doesn't want to be solitary? Hopefully, he/she gets an exception to that rule...same for assassins.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Are you really going to sit there and pretend that a Dreadnought, 5 Deathwing Knights, or 10 Banshees are probably not going to have killed a 10 Guardsman squad after having shot, successfully charged, and then fought them?

Once again:
Roll one D6 for each model from your army that is within Engagement Range of that enemy unit.

This isn't for "maybe killing 1 or 2 guardsmen" unless you're doing trash like has been mentioned elsewhere of using non-CC weapon attacks to tie an enemy unit up from shooting rather than actually killing them. It's for when an enemy unit that actually matters leaves combat after you surrounded them.

 xttz wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:

"Cut Them Down" ...


Once more 9E-compatible faction rules start appearing i fully expect to see unit- or weapon-specific traits that affect this stratagem. Much like how some units can still trigger overwatch on 5+, you could easily see specialist units doing the same with Cut Them Down. Lash Whips anyone?

Ayup--or just more unit or weapon specific traits that let you strike when an enemy falls back.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 16:27:34


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




No mention of shooting phase in that new rule..

Does that mean no more character sniping with psychic powers?
They now have to follow the same rules as shooting to pick out a character
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: