40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

Where are these previews being posted?

**Darsath**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where are these previews being posted?

They were on the Twitch stream. Article will probably be up in about an hour.

**Sasori**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where are these previews being posted?

All of this came from the daily stream. They said articles for the GSC will go up later, and I'm sure that includes the unit previews.

**Aash**

the_scotsman wrote:
So, what all this doesn't answer for me, still, is:

Why, in 9th edition, would I ever ever ever ever ever ever willingly field a unit of 6 or more god damn models?

What is the point? What is the purpose? You're just signing yourself up for an unending pain train of getting utterly hosed by every single core rule in the game!

Lets say I play Tau. I want to screen my lines with fire warriors. I can either field 4 units of 5 fire warriors, or 1 unit of 20.

If I take 1 unit of 20, here's what I get:

1) Vulnerability to morale. To take a single morale casualty with my 5-man squads, I need to take 4 casualties, then roll SPECIFICALLY a 5 on the morale dice (thanks, Bonding Knife Ritual!).

2) Automatic full hits from every blast weapon.

3) I can only score 1 objective, potentailly giving up 100% of my shooting for the turn if I have to take an "Action" to do it. My 4 squads of 5 can score 4 objectives, or I can take an "action" with one squad and keep 75% of my firepower.

4) Now I have to adhere to the new unit coherency rules

5) A single model getting into engagement range shuts off my whole battle line. My 5-man squads do overwatch exactly the same, but then you only get to engage 1 of my 4 squads if you only have a couple units or say 1 dreadnought or something.

Why in the flying hell would I ever take a unit of 6 or more models in 9th ed? What's the point?

I see where you're coming from, but i think the considerations for taking larger units will vary from faction to faction. I suspect that Orks will still get some sort of morale boost from larger units. Otherwise I think the following are the benefits to larger units:

1) new character targeting rules makes larger units better for character protection - more ablative wounds before the character is exposed.
2) larger units benefit from buffs stratagems more than smaller units.
3) larger units means less slots in the detachment, saving CPs if you can get everything into fewer detachments than taking the same number of models in MSU.

THat's all I've got really. Whether or not this out ways the downsides of large units I think will vary on a case by case basis.

**Ravajaxe**

the_scotsman wrote:
Darsath wrote:
5 power for 3 Eradicators puts them at approx 100 points for 3, or a likely points value of 30-35 points per model.

Hahahahahahahahaahahah.

So, a fire dragon but

2x the range
2x the firepower
3x the wounds
+1T
+1Ld
ATSKNF
Combat Doctrines
3x the melee attacks
+1S

for the same price

GW really has been loving the "let's totally invalidte aspect warriors' train recently.

This is really overpowered. How there is any interest in the game when the beloved factions get all the tools, is way better than anyone else, for similar or barely superior prices ?

**Eldarsif**

the_scotsman wrote:
Darsath wrote:
5 power for 3 Eradicators puts them at approx 100 points for 3, or a likely points value of 30-35 points per model.

Hahahahahahahahaahahah.

So, a fire dragon but

2x the range
2x the firepower
3x the wounds
+1T
+1Ld
ATSKNF
Combat Doctrines
3x the melee attacks
+1S

for the same price

GW really has been loving the "let's totally invalidte aspect warriors' train recently.

I am going to make a little Chicken Little prediction: 9th wiill see the first Aspect miniatures phased out of the game. With the current boost on these and their current PL cost it seems Aeldari are about to become a horde army or some units will just be phased out.

**Ghaz**

Voss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
Have they covered casualty removal yet? Because if you can knock out the middle of that chain it collapses.

Which raises an interesting question, if you do that, and the unit just skips its move phase, does it matter?

Unit Coherency doesn't seem to matter if the unit never moves, so can you intentionally group up at ends of a conga line, take casualties from the middle of line and just functionally have two separate immobile firebases for the rest of the game?

Say you're trying to cover mutiple objectives or spread out across two pieces of cover, and you just eliminate the ones in the middle that aren't in cover as the unit takes casualties. Does the unit just not care as long as it doesn't move?

The following is a rule from Age of Sigmar, but it could easily be in 9th edition:

SPLIT UNITS
At the end of each turn, you must remove models from any of the units in your army that are split up into two or more groups, until only one group of models from the unit remains in play. The models you remove count as having been slain.

**Tyran**

Aash wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
So, what all this doesn't answer for me, still, is:

Why, in 9th edition, would I ever ever ever ever ever ever willingly field a unit of 6 or more god damn models?

What is the point? What is the purpose? You're just signing yourself up for an unending pain train of getting utterly hosed by every single core rule in the game!

Lets say I play Tau. I want to screen my lines with fire warriors. I can either field 4 units of 5 fire warriors, or 1 unit of 20.

If I take 1 unit of 20, here's what I get:

1) Vulnerability to morale. To take a single morale casualty with my 5-man squads, I need to take 4 casualties, then roll SPECIFICALLY a 5 on the morale dice (thanks, Bonding Knife Ritual!).

2) Automatic full hits from every blast weapon.

3) I can only score 1 objective, potentailly giving up 100% of my shooting for the turn if I have to take an "Action" to do it. My 4 squads of 5 can score 4 objectives, or I can take an "action" with one squad and keep 75% of my firepower.

4) Now I have to adhere to the new unit coherency rules

5) A single model getting into engagement range shuts off my whole battle line. My 5-man squads do overwatch exactly the same, but then you only get to engage 1 of my 4 squads if you only have a couple units or say 1 dreadnought or something.

Why in the flying hell would I ever take a unit of 6 or more models in 9th ed? What's the point?

I see where you're coming from, but i think the considerations for taking larger units will vary from faction to faction. I suspect that Orks will still get some sort of morale boost from larger units. Otherwise I think the following are the benefits to larger units:

1) new character targeting rules makes larger units better for character protection - more ablative wounds before the character is exposed.
2) larger units benefit from buffs stratagems more than smaller units.
3) larger units means less slots in the detachment, saving CPs if you can get everything into fewer detachments than taking the same number of models in MSU.

THat's all I've got really. Whether or not this out ways the downsides of large units I think will vary on a case by case basis.

Also some units, specially horde ones, have bespoken bonuses for being larger.

**Platuan4th**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Doohicky wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.

Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples

They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.

Yeah, not splitting fire is such a restriction for a 3 model unit.

**IanVanCheese**

New coherency rules will be great with one minor tweak, which tbf could still be in the rules in another area.

Casualties should not be able to removed in such as way as to leave the unit out of coherency at the end (or as close as possible).

Edit: missed that someone else had suggested this. Split units seems like the best solution.

**Not Online!!!**

Platuan4th wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Doohicky wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.

Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples

They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.

Yeah, not splitting fire is such a restriction for a 3 model unit.

Aye, not to mentiont that for not splitting the fire they get a free non-stratagem use ability that other factions have to cut into their strategic reserves

As an aside, chosen msu are PL7.

**the_scotsman**

Tyran wrote:
Also some units, specially horde ones, have bespoken bonuses for being larger.

Those bonuses are going to need to be a looooooooooooot bigger for people to ever consider taking a unit like ork boyz at all in 9th eds ruleset.

**Voss**

Ghaz wrote:
Voss wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
Have they covered casualty removal yet? Because if you can knock out the middle of that chain it collapses.

Which raises an interesting question, if you do that, and the unit just skips its move phase, does it matter?

Unit Coherency doesn't seem to matter if the unit never moves, so can you intentionally group up at ends of a conga line, take casualties from the middle of line and just functionally have two separate immobile firebases for the rest of the game?

Say you're trying to cover mutiple objectives or spread out across two pieces of cover, and you just eliminate the ones in the middle that aren't in cover as the unit takes casualties. Does the unit just not care as long as it doesn't move?

The following is a rule from Age of Sigmar, but it could easily be in 9th edition:

SPLIT UNITS
At the end of each turn, you must remove models from any of the units in your army that are split up into two or more groups, until only one group of models from the unit remains in play. The models you remove count as having been slain.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I mean.
But you'd think that would be in the unit coherency rules themselves, rather than the odd asides about how movement happens in the movement phase, and a slice of the reinforcement rules.

**Ravajaxe**

The eradicator squad profile, for those who have missed the Twitch :

**Ice_can**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Doohicky wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.

Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples

They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.

These guys are disgusting a MultiMelta is 22 points in 8th these guys are coming in at less points than a multi Melta tac marine in 8th FS with supposedly an avarage increase in points of 20%.
They also get assault not heavy weapons and get free second shot for shooting 3 mekta shots at 1 unit?
I'm sorry but the Marine powercreep is total

at this point 12 +22 =34 +10%, 38 these guys are paying less thank a tac marine for a gravis statline.

**the_scotsman**

reminder that 4 retributors (less shots, less toughness, A1) are exactly the same PL as these stupid things.

**H.B.M.C.**

It bothers me that the rule for Eradicators is "Total Obliteration" rather than "Total Eradication".

**tneva82**

So pl hints about 35pts. Sob multi melta retributor at 32 pts looks in envy. Half the shots, can't advance, 2 less wounds, 2 less t and bunch of other stats worse.

Only benefit sisters have is 10 pts ablative wounds if you face multidamage weapons

**the_scotsman**

TFW you play GSC and their preview for your faction was how you're going to need to pay CPs to bring allied tyranids and guard, and now you're going to need to adhere to new squad coherency rules, and you pay more points for a stop sign for your aberrant squad leader than marines pay for a power armor wearing Grotesque with a pair of multi-meltas.

**Not Online!!!**

the_scotsman wrote:
reminder that 4 retributors (less shots, less toughness, A1) are exactly the same PL as these stupid things.

Chosen are PL7 these are PL 5.

A squad of chosen with melta clocks in at 131 pts atm. Assuming csm / chosen bodies only get a 20% hike they'd be about 16ppm / in 9th... so 151 pts.

So they are somehow LESS then 5 Chosen with meltas pts wise..

tell me, when was the last time people used chosen?

**Tyel**

Its just creep.

Fire Dragons have been crap for a long time, so I don't think they are a great comparison.
A better one is probably a multimelta retributor squad. In current points you get 4 MMs for 138 points I think.

But who wants 4 shots when you can have 6?

**the_scotsman**

Tyel wrote:
Its just creep.

Fire Dragons have been crap for a long time, so I don't think they are a great comparison.
A better one is probably a multimelta retributor squad. In current points you get 4 MMs for 138 points I think.

But who wants 4 shots when you can have 6?

And t5, and W3, and 3 S4 Ap- melee attacks instead of 1 S3 Ws4+ melee attack.

**IanVanCheese**

Bare in mind points costs have gone up but PL looks unchanged, so these guys might be a bit steeper than 100 pts. They're still insanely good though.

**Rinkydink**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
It bothers me that the rule for Eradicators is "Total Obliteration" rather than "Total Eradication".

I think 'Total eradication' will just be the generic Primaris trademark to the NPC factions and their former oldmarine comrades....

**Voss**

Hmm.
I like the addition of model numbers to the statline.
Easier to see at a glance rather than being part of the gear paragraph.

Plus it makes an easy distinction between 8th and 9th datacards.

**tneva82**

IanVanCheese wrote:
Bare in mind points costs have gone up but PL looks unchanged, so these guys might be a bit steeper than 100 pts. They're still insanely good though.

Except they have updated pl's so unless formula changed comparable

Pts increase :sn't flat x% for all units

**ClockworkZion**

People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

**Arbitrator**

ClockworkZion wrote:
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?

If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.

**Mothman**

Personally wish that these guys were either range 18-20" and that their double fire was tied to not moving or required them to be under half range, even without the current bonus id rarely split fire them anyway it hardly seems like a drawback.

Think with bikes and these if their PL is somewhat similar I could see marines still being very strong with turn 1 alpha strikes.

**catbarf**

ClockworkZion wrote:
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.

The WarCom article on Combat Patrol said that 25PL = 500pts, and several of the sample Combat Patrol armies show the same PL as their current cost. There's no reason, so far, to think that PL is changing.