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.

diepotato47 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:

"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "

I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.

So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.

Also said in the same thread:

"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."

Maybe... Maybe... This is pure speculation, maybe you no longer NEED to declare a charge to move in to Engagement Range of your opponent? As in, if you can get in to Engagement Range in the Movement Phase, you are allowed to do so. That would be a pretty massive change, and a controversial one.

Either that or a less randomised charge? d6+Movement?

d6 + movement seems unlikely to mesh well with the smaller 44x60 boards, a pity because i d love that myself !

diepotato47 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:

"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "

I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.

So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.

Also said in the same thread:

"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."

Maybe... Maybe... This is pure speculation, maybe you no longer NEED to declare a charge to move in to Engagement Range of your opponent? As in, if you can get in to Engagement Range in the Movement Phase, you are allowed to do so. That would be a pretty massive change, and a controversial one.

Either that or a less randomised charge? d6+Movement?

Well.. we do know for sure that you need to roll high enough to reach all the targets you declare against to have a successfull charge, so there's that

torblind wrote:
Well.. we do know for sure that you need to roll high enough to reach all the targets you declare against to have a successfull charge, so there's that

We also know you can deploy reserves straight into cc/base contact with enemy units in your deployment zone.

So at least one new way to get into the fight without charge exists.

 Mmmpi wrote:

torblind wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.

Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...

Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?

The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.

Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.

No, that's just one way to get kicked in the nuts.

the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah look out sir is fundamentally broken. A lone death jester standing there can be shot even if he's not closest target, but two death jesters standing together can not be, as long as they're within 3" and there's something somewhere on the board closer.

Just means your characters now have to go around holding hands with another character and they're fine.

How did this make it through playtesting? Downright embarrassing.

Um...nope?

the reason people are talking about daemon princes is because you're never gonna get an INFANTRY character with a unit that has 3 or more models...

GSC can lol

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

torblind wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.

Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...

Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?

The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.

Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.

No, that's just one way to get kicked in the nuts.

Compared to saying "My monster character is next to another monster character so you can't shoot them"? Because that's just as stupid.

They should create a hierarchy of key words to be honest.

For instance in the case of a clash of key words, causing conflicting effects, they should state which keywords take precedence.

For example, character is a top tier key word, so always takes precedence over monsters which could be a tiers 2 in the case of disputes that cause weird interactions.

At which point, most or all weird keyword clashes that cause weird outcomes are solved.

sieGermans wrote:

Danit wrote:
I think alot of the complaints about the new look out sir dont take into account the new terrain rules. Full Los blocking is far more common now.

Not really. At least here 1st floor blocks los has been used from start and 9th ed rule makes it easier to get los so it's step back.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
They should create a hierarchy of key words to be honest.

For instance in the case of a clash of key words, causing conflicting effects, they should state which keywords take precedence.

For example, character is a top tier key word, so always takes precedence over monsters which could be a tiers 2 in the case of disputes that cause weird interactions.

At which point, most or all weird keyword clashes that cause weird outcomes are solved.

As someone who has playing Magic: The Gathering for 24 years or so, it always strikes me as wild just how "loose" the language GW writes it's rules in actually is in practice.

I mean, I am not some formal logic authoritarian, but there is utility to be found in the approach. For all the problems MTG has as a game, the Rules are so seldomly one of them. Another instance where it seems hard to believe even just some dedicated fan-rules couldn't do better.

Perhaps the new rule will allow you to attack anyone within engagement range, not just who you charged. This means any character that heroically intervenes can still be a target of an attack. Would remove the multi-charge issue.

Can someone who is familiar with chaos tell me what the point increase was? I looked thru the last few pages and nothing mentioned it. Seems like very interesting information.

Today's Warhammer 40,000 Daily will cover the greenskins...

Get ready ya gitz, today's #New40K show is lookin' at da Orks and how they're gonna smash some heads in the new edition.

Anyone know what today's topic is?

Orks today.

Maybe we’ll find out more about Hordes?

I can't wait to see how little info we get from the Orks preview.

it will how much buffs the orks get with all those core rule changes

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't wait to see how little info we get from the Orks preview.

Sisters preview had a decent chunk of info, so maybe we'll get a decent chunk out of the Ork Faction focus.

They seem to have caught on that -no- info just ticks the community off at least.

Two possible highlights would be how morale works and how it interacts with Mob Rule and how melee works as Orks are primarily a melee faction.

 H wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
They should create a hierarchy of key words to be honest.

For instance in the case of a clash of key words, causing conflicting effects, they should state which keywords take precedence.

For example, character is a top tier key word, so always takes precedence over monsters which could be a tiers 2 in the case of disputes that cause weird interactions.

At which point, most or all weird keyword clashes that cause weird outcomes are solved.

As someone who has playing Magic: The Gathering for 24 years or so, it always strikes me as wild just how "loose" the language GW writes it's rules in actually is in practice.

I mean, I am not some formal logic authoritarian, but there is utility to be found in the approach. For all the problems MTG has as a game, the Rules are so seldomly one of them. Another instance where it seems hard to believe even just some dedicated fan-rules couldn't do better.

Whilst all will agree, the application of the english language to rules is not the best at times, I also have sympathy for GW, namely if you consider how many units there are in the game, then the special rules, and the keywords, then the special rules that interact with specific keywords, there are going to be a huge amount of unintended interactions, even if rules are written well in the first place.

I think it needs to be accepted to have a much tighter rule set, a hell of a lot of variability needs to be removed from the game, and that probably then includes certain factions in total as well. I doubt many other than the most extreme haters want that, so maybe just some additional rule steps like my suggestion above (and there is probably and even more elegant way to try and fail safe against the issue than my suggestion) is one way tidy things up from the start.

Christ, loopholes happen in the criminal justice system in countries, with laws providing quirky unintended loopholes also, so if that happens at the absolute highest level of 'rule writing' we have in society, then I think GW needs a little break as well.

The wording genuinely is not the best again, but then, do they want to be writing 4x sides of A4 just for one rule?

Well GW is holding tight to the pricing information about the box set,

My online independant supplier has been asked how many he wants, has been told it's a LE and will sell out fast...… but GW won't tell him what the price is so he's got to order blind

which does make me wonder if he £120 we're expecting this to cost based on the value of the prize draw GW is running might be wrong

Could it be that the £120 is for a later 'unlimited' run and the initial release will be more?

So today is likely going to be the combat changes. If the leaks are true, then they'll mention that you can move through engaging models when falling back, and that models that fall back cannot shoot even if they have fly. Exception for Ultramarines won't be mentioned right away but later on when they discus the new Space Marine codex for the new edition in a couple weeks.

Or maybe they'll tell us how Fall Back works, and put to bed over a week of arguments.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well GW is holding tight to the pricing information about the box set,

My online independant supplier has been asked how many he wants, has been told it's a LE and will sell out fast...… but GW won't tell him what the price is so he's got to order blind

which does make me wonder if he £120 we're expecting this to cost based on the value of the prize draw GW is running might be wrong

Could it be that the £120 is for a later 'unlimited' run and the initial release will be more?

My FLGS is predicting $250-300USD based on GW pricing schemes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or maybe they'll tell us how Fall Back works, and put to bed over a week of arguments.

Unlikely. Instead we'll learn how Orks tie their shoes with shoelace squigs.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well GW is holding tight to the pricing information about the box set,

My online independant supplier has been asked how many he wants, has been told it's a LE and will sell out fast...… but GW won't tell him what the price is so he's got to order blind

which does make me wonder if he £120 we're expecting this to cost based on the value of the prize draw GW is running might be wrong

Could it be that the £120 is for a later 'unlimited' run and the initial release will be more?

Is that even legal? Seems like some kind of scam:

GW: Tell us how much product you want
FLGS: Dunno, how much does it cost?
GW: We can't say but it'll be a great deal!
FLGS: Yeah, but cashflow's an issue right now
GW: Well, would you want to miss out on this great opportunity?
FLGS: Sure, whatever, I'll take 5.
GW: Excellent...(a month later) that'll be £5,000

So... not Orks.

Space Marine colour schemes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... not Orks.

Space Marine colour schemes.

I wonder if there is an internet issue at Stu's house or something.

See how cool is blowing off hordes of orks thanks to the Blast rule!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... not Orks.

Space Marine colour schemes.

Oh

Orks are really improved by the blast rule! Were you not bored for needing to move 200 models per turn with your army?

NO more! With the new blast rules , just in turn 2 you'll have at best 20-30 models! Orks will really feell like playing space marines in 9th!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... not Orks.

Space Marine colour schemes.

Bummer. I switched off Twitch instantly. I don't care about how to paint the plain super-clean super-heroes poster boys.

I mean, the article will still most likely be Orks though, right?