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.

 puma713 wrote:

I love it.

I had to mute the stream for a meeting, I wonder if this will apply to "deep strikers" as well or if units with Terminator Armor, jump packs etc will have bespoke rules that make them exempt.

Seems we can't avoid PL at all.

Nice that this allows you to keep things that can't actually start off the table. I also like how things don't just die if you're not on the table by the end of the third round.

 Sarigar wrote:

Spoiler:

What a horrifically empty table.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:


I love it.

I had to mute the stream for a meeting, I wonder if this will apply to "deep strikers" as well or if units with Terminator Armor, jump packs etc will have bespoke rules that make them exempt.

They said that units with innate reserves rules (like GSC) will not cost CPs.

Also, Aircraft don't have to come on from a board edge. Can come on anywhere, as long as they are 9" away.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems we can't avoid PL at all.

Nice that this allows you to keep things that can't actually start off the table. I also like how things don't just die if you're not on the table by the end of the third round.

 Sarigar wrote:

Spoiler:

What a horrifically empty table.

PL was used for a number of 8th ed deep strike strats so it isn't really a shock.

Power Level in matched play, I hate it.

Also I thought we were meant to be able to use Strategic Reserves to get into melee, or was that a miscommunication?

Morale:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 addnid wrote:


The sort of army we all have come to love to play against ! So thematic ! Death from above ! Death from above !

Well, if Wraithknights were equally as good as Imperial/Chaos Knights, if close combat stuff like Striking Scorpions or Wraithblades could tangle in a world of Assault Centurions and Possessed Bombs, if Wraithlords & such could see eye to eye with the popular Forge World Marine dreads, etc.. you'd perhaps see more variety

I don't think, point for point, across all armies, equal stat lines should have equal costs. Some armies should be better or worse at certain things than others.

 puma713 wrote:
Morale:

Pending implementation in units too but I like this.

They're talking about how units can change the combat attrition roll as well as increasing odds of failed rolls.

Still seems to preserve small units avoiding the consequences tho, so I'm a little worried about that. Like the back half is great, but units that passed before without concern still don't worry as much. But I haven't had a chance to think more deeply.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Power Level in matched play, I hate it.

Also I thought we were meant to be able to use Strategic Reserves to get into melee, or was that a miscommunication?

there is rules in the article not covered in the bullet point list:


Lying in Ambush
Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!

I like the affect the Morale rules can have, but that does seem a little more clunky than just rolling once.

That morale rule stops hordes getting wiped by killing half of them.

As I think about it it might not be as useless because before the goal was to pile on negative modifiers to cause more guys to flee, which was really hard with say an MSU squad of high-leadership SM, because the only way to force significant Morale-induced casualties was to have that difference be as high as possible. Now a failure by a single point has the same casualty possibility as a critical failure.

Again, need more time to ponder and not the best at critical analysis of rules, but that seems at the very worst better than it was.

Just makes morale even less relevant

While I definitely like some of the new rules and changes to current rules (some I'm not too crazy about), I am going to miss the simplicity of 8th's rules and how easy it is to teach the game to others. For playing at home with family and friends that are not hardcore gamers I will likely stick with 8th + codexes, without any supplements, and Apocalypse for larger games.

You can't Strategic Reserves a Baneblade (or variant) that has sponsons, as it's longer than 6 inches wide.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
That morale rule stops hordes getting wiped by killing half of them.

Yea, this is definitely more horde-friendly than 8th.

This rule doesn't quite nullify the consequence of MSUs having a step-wise Morale failure phenomenon versus Horde armies having a more fluid continuum--which favors MSUs for leadership purposes.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:



Pending implementation in units too but I like this.

They're talking about how units can change the combat attrition roll as well as increasing odds of failed rolls.

Still seems to preserve small units avoiding the consequences tho, so I'm a little worried about that. Like the back half is great, but units that passed before without concern still don't worry as much. But I haven't had a chance to think more deeply.

That half strength bit might be key there, depending on what other rules come into play. Smaller squads start disappearing quicker, which is pretty much the same as now (with some squad sizes meaning it's impossible to fail unless everyone is dead) but might be more significant if there's more heavy LD modifiers about the place. Things like Tempestus Jackals ability to have casulties count as double for morale checks meaning that a loss of 2 men is a +4 to your roll.

Wouldn't be surpised if Mob rule turns into a +1 on attrition above half strength, so that orks lose just one guy a turn above half strength and then really start vanishing once you drop below.

sieGermans wrote:

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
That morale rule stops hordes getting wiped by killing half of them.

Yea, this is definitely more horde-friendly than 8th.

This rule doesn't quite nullify the consequence of MSUs having a step-wise Morale failure phenomenon versus Horde armies having a more fluid continuum--which favors MSUs for leadership purposes.

Yeah right now the best I can say is you don't need to blow as many strats and combo as many units as physically possible to maximize that difference and guarantee significant casualties.

But as you said high leader MSU's are still pretty unaffected.

Although on the other hand, it is easier to get MSUs to half strength.

Not a fan of the Morale rules unless they change most (ideally all) units to actually be affected by morale in the first place. These rules don't counter the problem of small units never taking the test in the first place and most large units are either natively immune to morale or effectively so. I hope they adjust that so all units are able to be affected by this in some way.

So hordes have the benefit here versus MSU, while MSU has the benefit over Blast weapons.

 Tastyfish wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:



Pending implementation in units too but I like this.

They're talking about how units can change the combat attrition roll as well as increasing odds of failed rolls.

Still seems to preserve small units avoiding the consequences tho, so I'm a little worried about that. Like the back half is great, but units that passed before without concern still don't worry as much. But I haven't had a chance to think more deeply.

That half strength bit might be key there, depending on what other rules come into play. Smaller squads start disappearing quicker, which is pretty much the same as now (with some squad sizes meaning it's impossible to fail unless everyone is dead) but might be more significant if there's more heavy LD modifiers about the place. Things like Tempestus Jackals ability to have casulties count as double for morale checks meaning that a loss of 2 men is a +4 to your roll.

Wouldn't be surpised if Mob rule turns into a +1 on attrition above half strength, so that orks lose just one guy a turn above half strength and then really start vanishing once you drop below.

Interesting take yeah.

I hope we do see that, morale being kind of a non-issue for a lot of armies was one of the bigger missed opportunities of 8th. Like yeah SM should be resilient, but the fact that you almost always forgot to roll for morale because it was such a non-issue to your Ld 8 5 man squad never felt good. At least in 6th and 7th I'd have units break and fall back.

I hope we see that, morale being a non-issue for armies like marines was super unfortunate.

 Tyran wrote:
Although on the other hand, it is easier to get MSUs to half strength.

That's the step-wise phenomenon MSUs benefit from.

In a continuum of infinite, equal shots this would benefit MSUs disproportionately, however in Real Life where the number of shots/attacks is more finite, it can be the case that it is easier to bring an MSU to half strength than it is to accomplish the same against a Horde unit.

In late 8th Ed., though, it felt like we were closer to the "infinite shots" side of the spectrum.

Makes me wonder if they're going to double down on Morale modifiers for units like the Death Jester or Night Lords. Maybe modify the Ld AND the Attrition rolls going forward. It would be a lot more deadly, imo, if a unit starts giving you big modifiers to your Attrition rolls as well.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
That morale rule stops hordes getting wiped by killing half of them.

Which is definitely a good thing. I just think in execution it may end up being a bit fiddly.

sieGermans wrote:

I don't think, point for point, across all armies, equal stat lines should have equal costs. Some armies should be better or worse at certain things than others.

Maybe not. But than you shouldn't be surprised if armies of certain factions all skew towards the things that faction does best.

By that logic, Eldar running disproportionally flyer spam would be the goal, as they aren't supposed to be as good/efficient with other stuff.

 puma713 wrote:
Makes me wonder if they're going to double down on Morale modifiers for units like the Death Jester or Night Lords. Maybe modify the Ld AND the Attrition rolls going forward. It would be a lot more deadly, imo, if a unit starts giving you big modifiers to your Attrition rolls as well.

SOunded like they were saying as much during the stream.

Again my biggest concern is getting over the initial hump of the first step on MSU's but I'm remaining optimistic.

 puma713 wrote:
Morale:

They said this would help Night Lords. I'm not seeing it. Maybe if I think a little more. Guess it's easier to make one guy run.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Power Level in matched play, I hate it.

Also I thought we were meant to be able to use Strategic Reserves to get into melee, or was that a miscommunication?

The rule previewed is not matched-play specific.

Matched-play may or may not have additional restrictions (similar to 8th) such as forcing you to deploy half your points at the start, etc..

Also about deepstriking into melee, it's at the bottom of the article.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

I don't think, point for point, across all armies, equal stat lines should have equal costs. Some armies should be better or worse at certain things than others.

Maybe not. But than you shouldn't be surprised if armies of certain factions all skew towards the things that faction does best.

By that logic, Eldar running disproportionally flyer spam would be the goal, as they aren't supposed to be as good/efficient with other stuff.

In theory, that should be the idea--and likewise in principle that should be designed to balance against the strengths of other factions.

In practice, that's horrifically difficult to do in this game due to the sheer number of factions and units--and some factions have been designed to be capable of being good at everything.