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.

I think I recall Stu mentioning a reserves strat. on the Twitch stream. I believe the discussion was about putting units into reserve that do not otherwise have the ability to do so. I suppose it could be a core rule, but I would hope there is some price to do it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Random question, is anyone else seeing the difference on the Warhammer 40k store page?

I don't want to prejudice anyone before they check and maybe it's just a thing I've missed, so I'll be putting the weirdness in spoilers:

Spoiler:

Hey, did you look yet? Cool. Space Marines are not present in Armies of the Imperium. They have their own tag.

It wasn't like this a few days ago. I don't think it has a deeper meaning - the list was just too long. They have bundles with no discount to save a few clicks, so I guess they want to save the costumers some seconds of scrolling.

That or Guilliman seperates the Adeptus Astartes from the Imperium. Well...

yukishiro1 wrote:
Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.

I wouldn’t really sign that this makes tri-pointing a bigger part. Before it was guaranteed against nearly any non-fly unit you charged or consolidated into, and in those cases it was the absolute best way to play. Now it’s not always guaranteed to work. Because it comes with some drawbacks (only one of your guys actually go within 1” and attack, so you do no damage) I’m not sure it would be ’always worth it’ like you said to do no damage at all just to drain 2 cp from your opponent.

Ice_can wrote:
terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.

No counter play no balance.

CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.

The terrain is worse than ITC for melee, the competitive format everyone used, not better. In ITC ruins block even if you're in them, in 9th they only block LOS if you're behind them, which is a huge nerf to melee. The distance between armies is the same, it's the rest that got smaller, which actually generally favors shooting as it makes it even harder to outrange stuff.

The amount of units with T1 charge capability is a stupid left-over and side effect of how shooty 8th was. The only thing GW knew to do to make combat units viable was to make them so fast they can engage before they get shot. It's stupid and they should have removed most of these interactions from 9th rather than continuing to balance around them. "Charge something, then get wiped off the table on your next turn by the enemy's shooting" doesn't make for satisfying gameplay.

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.

This issue is most of the people who are anti fallback are arguing for a pendulum swing of rules changes that results in CC becoming an automatic I win button. Better terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.

No counter play no balance.

CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.

Distances are same. Table size(minimum) results in smaller depth. But with 30-40" t1 charges and/or starting 9" from enemy dz t1 charges were already dead easy.

What is tau to do if enemy army basically t1 assaults whole army and there's no fall back? Manipulating casualties so entire tau units don't die is dirt easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I think I recall Stu mentioning a reserves strat. on the Twitch stream. I believe the discussion was about putting units into reserve that do not otherwise have the ability to do so. I suppose it could be a core rule, but I would hope there is some price to do it.

And thought they mentioned cp cost. This when they talked about cp change

 Therion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.

I wouldn’t really sign that this makes tri-pointing a bigger part. Before it was guaranteed against nearly any non-fly unit you charged or consolidated into, and in those cases it was the absolute best way to play. Now it’s not always guaranteed to work. Because it comes with some drawbacks (only one of your guys actually go within 1” and attack, so you do no damage) I’m not sure it would be ’always worth it’ like you said to do no damage at all just to drain 2 cp from your opponent.

I'm not talking about the "deliberately don't kill the enemy by fighting with only one model" kind of tri-point. I'm talking about the "fight with most of your models then tri-point if there's something left" kind. This just makes it even more necessary to be really careful with your movement to see if you can trap stuff, even if your overall objective is to kill most of the unit. It will result in even more tortured premeasuring and 5+ minute fiddling with your charging models to maximize your chances of being able to wrap something, or ideally two somethings.

Before wrap and trap was usually pretty quick and easy because you only needed to do it to one thing. Now people are going to be playing intricate geometry patterns every charge phase to see if they have some way to do an unbeatable wrap or, failing that, at least force the opponent to waste 2CP.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.

No counter play no balance.

CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.

The terrain is worse than ITC for melee, the competitive format everyone used, not better. In ITC ruins block even if you're in them, in 9th they only block LOS if you're behind them, which is a huge nerf to melee. The distance between armies is the same, it's the rest that got smaller, which actually generally favors shooting as it makes it even harder to outrange stuff.

The amount of units with T1 charge capability is a stupid left-over and side effect of how shooty 8th was. The only thing GW knew to do to make combat units viable was to make them so fast they can engage before they get shot. It's stupid and they should have removed most of these interactions from 9th rather than continuing to balance around them. "Charge something, then get wiped off the table on your next turn by the enemy's shooting" doesn't make for satisfying gameplay.

Well if you think only america did competive tournaments...europe had plenty competive tournaments and itc was minority. And we had better balance.

Though terrain rule was here too. Indeed on 8th ed launch date onward

European tournaments had the same 1st floor of ruins blocks LOS rule, didn't they? I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest over America vs. Europe, just pointing out that the 9th edition ruins rule are a nerf to melee vis-a-vis the rules most people used in 8th, not a buff.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.

Remember that it's not just GW. They were influenced by playtesters who, by all accounts, were largely tournament players who may or may not believe tri-pointing was a problem, or believed that it was such a rare problem that a 2CP strat would fix it.

I don't think this will replace fall back I just hope fall back itself has seen some changes to not be automatic and a no brainer so you can crater where the melee unit use to be.

After the melee sequencing change I had thought maybe fall back was something you could do on your turn instead of making your melee attacks.

yukishiro1 wrote:
European tournaments had the same 1st floor of ruins blocks LOS rule, didn't they? I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest over America vs. Europe, just pointing out that the 9th edition ruins rule are a nerf to melee vis-a-vis the rules most people used in 8th, not a buff.

We did (first floor blocks los) the entire edition, but ETC and BTC and all preparatory events of course went even better than that, and all terrain was L and U shaped walls (ruins) with no holes or windows or doors whatsoever. Those same walls continue to block LOS completely in 9th, because you still can’t shoot something you don’t physically see at all.

Tripointing is one of those things that's well known among the competitive environment but is widely unknown and underused among the greater playerbase at large, and I think a lot of people aren't really going to understand the point of "Desperate Breakout" or see a whole lot of use for it in many environments.

But that makes what they did all the weirder.

I personally have no problem with wrapping, aside from the tedium of actually doing it. But their solution doesn't address the actual problem - it just makes the movement part even more tedious, then gives the other player an "out" for 2CP.

If there was a problem with wrapping it's that it slowed the game down too much with too much careful measuring. But this only makes that element even worse, since if you can tri-point two units, you defeat the counter-mechanism.

I don't think *anybody* thought the problem with tri-pointing was it wasn't technical enough.

At this point I feel like I am going to just start saying: "I am charging you with my 10-man combat unit, fighting with 6 of them, then wrapping you if you have anything left. We both know from looking I can do this, because I have the movement to wrap a survivor no matter how you pull casualties. Can we save 5-10 minutes of pointless measuring and counter-measuring and just play by intent and say that's what happened? Either you're going to fail morale, use the 2CP strat, or stay in combat, and either way isn't it easier just to save everyone's time and energy?"

Retaining the pointless tedium while providing an automatic out is the worst possible way to deal with wrapping.

People have been pointing out how this affects tripointing, but it's worth noting this also effects wrap and trap strategies with hordes or units that have a long consolidate move as well.

Counter-play is to either multi-charge to trap multiple units, or charge with multiple units to force the opponent to make choices on which unit to try and save.

Worth noting is that the strat can only be used on a unit that hasn't already been selected to move which implies there is either a way to fail falling back, or that this ensures that it doesn't allow someone to try and fallback and fail against something like Shardnets only to pop the strat and try again.

This also may make wargear like Shardnets more impactful since the unit gets to then try and Fallback, which seems like it'd still trigger any rules that prevent them from falling back thus causing said unit to be wiped.

 Therion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
European tournaments had the same 1st floor of ruins blocks LOS rule, didn't they? I wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest over America vs. Europe, just pointing out that the 9th edition ruins rule are a nerf to melee vis-a-vis the rules most people used in 8th, not a buff.

We did (first floor blocks los) the entire edition, but ETC and BTC and all preparatory events of course went even better than that, and all terrain was L and U shaped walls (ruins) with no holes or windows or doors whatsoever. Those same walls continue to block LOS completely in 9th, because you still can’t shoot something you don’t physically see at all.

To clarify if you have 2 large ruins with no windows etc and gave them the obscuring key word, with a triumph of st k on one side and a marine on the other side of the 2 ruins, the marine can't shoot it as it's not visible in spite of the obsuring wording?

Or are you just not applying that keyword since it isn't needed?

Asking since you're a tea reader with good guesses.

TLoS matters so if you can't see through it it doesn't need obscuring.

From the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:


So confirmation that a 'normal' Fall Back move is possible (even if we don't know for sure how that works in 9th edition just yet).

GW seems to have once again split the baby and pleased nobody.

The change to smaller tables seems to be important and 9th is made with small tables as standard.

" The change in board size presents a new challenge for armies that traditionally relied on making the most of the distance between armies to allow their shooting to take its toll. "

Taken from the article.

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW seems to have once again split the baby and pleased nobody.

People keep saying that only for GW to drop more information and sway opinion the other way.

The biggest impact from this rule is likely on it preventing the alpha strike charge with a single unit that traps a unit before consolidating their way deeper into the enemy lines over the course of the game.

Melee will either need to risk a multi-charge that's easier to fail, or hit with more units at the same time to see dividends now, which I think makes melee a mid to late game strategy instead of an early game strat with this change.

Not talking about melee generally, talking about this one particular change. They somehow managed to accomplish the incredible feat of actually increasing the tedium of wrapping while at the same time presenting a way out that makes you still have to go through the tedium, without the reward, in order to at least soak the opponent's CP. This pleases nobody. Nobody thought the problem with wrapping was that it wasn't tedious and technical enough.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Not talking about melee generally, talking about this one particular change. They somehow managed to accomplish the incredible feat of actually increasing the tedium of wrapping while at the same time presenting a way out that makes you still have to go through the tedium, without the reward, in order to at least soak the opponent's CP. This pleases nobody. Nobody thought the problem with wrapping was that it wasn't tedious and technical enough.

As I pointed out that it softens Alpha Strike tactics which were prone to creating some rather unfun play experiances, and it eats CP, has a chance of killing important models and it has restrictions so units can't attempt to fallback twice.

We need the Fallback rules to know more about how this fits into rest of the game. Before then it's too early to pass judgement.

The rest of the fallback rules don't matter for this particular point. Their solution to wrapping was to keep all the tedium while letting the other player avoid the consequences for 2CP. That's not a solution that makes anybody happy.

If they were going to nerf wrapping they ought to have done it in a way that spares the tedium.

It's like fixing aggressors by still letting them roll 140 attacks worth of dice and then at the end you can spend 2CP to reduce the amount of damage they do by half. It doesn't fix the problem, which is the tedium of rolling 140 dice worth of attacks.

Huh..I wonder if you could use acid blood & death shriek to abuse this. Get enough gants into an evenly, spend 3 cp, 20 gants die, LRBT takes 20x (6+ on two d6) mortal wounds.

Death shriek works, acid blood doesn't because they're just being destroyed, not losing a wound.

yukishiro1 wrote:
GW seems to have once again split the baby and pleased nobody.

Pretty happy with this myself. If gimmicks have costs and consequences, by all means, they need to do more splitting.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Random question, is anyone else seeing the difference on the Warhammer 40k store page?

I don't want to prejudice anyone before they check and maybe it's just a thing I've missed, so I'll be putting the weirdness in spoilers:

Spoiler:

Hey, did you look yet? Cool. Space Marines are not present in Armies of the Imperium. They have their own tag.

It wasn't like this a few days ago. I don't think it has a deeper meaning - the list was just too long. They have bundles with no discount to save a few clicks, so I guess they want to save the costumers some seconds of scrolling.

Yeah. This looks like simple sales organization- there is a definite drop off in customer usability when there are too many options, and space marine subfactions were swamping everything else.
The amusing thing is that it highlights the pure redundancy and overlap- ~90 SM products are shared, except with DW, GK and SW.

For the "tripointing is becoming more important crowd", we still don't know if there are any changes to how close combat works. A small tweak to the rules for Charging, Piling In and/or Consolidating can greatly impact the ability to tripoint a unit. If they return the move directly towards the closest enemy model rule that would be a big change. Also if they required all charging models to move as far as possible to get into Engagement Range, that would be a significant change. We will have to wait for more information.

Far more interesting to me is the lack of any Necron rules in Pariah. It only contains the rules for Illuminor Szeras. This has to mean Codex Necrons is right around the corner after 9th Edition is released. No point in Psychic Awakening rules when the entire Codex is getting released with new models and updated rules.

You're happy with a solution that preserves all the tedium of and continues to reward the "gimmick," just not as much as before?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion I guess, but it seems a really weird take.

Not to mention that the "gimmick" of wrapping isn't half as gimmicky as the gimmick of falling back while the enemy you are in combat with has to just stand there and take your whole army's shooting instead of following you.

I agree. Fall back was a gimmicky way for shooting to continue on unhindered so I hope it's been altered. (I personally think it's seen some changes but they really need to get to revealing it as so much hinges on that and the morale changes)

 alextroy wrote:
For the "tripointing is becoming more important crowd", we still don't know if there are any changes to how close combat works. A small tweak to the rules for Charging, Piling In and/or Consolidating can greatly impact the ability to tripoint a unit. If they return the move directly towards the closest enemy model rule that would be a big change. Also if they required all charging models to move as far as possible to get into Engagement Range, that would be a significant change. We will have to wait for more information.

All those things would be even bigger nerfs to melee. If your suggestion is that people should wait for the whole ruleset before judging because it might be even worse for melee than it currently looks...I'm not sure it really assuages anyone's concerns, but ok I guess?