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.
2020/06/30 05:26:10
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
ClockworkZion wrote: That means Castles (excluding that one Tau castle people like to bring up that moves to the centerboard early game) need to start moving earlier in the game when more of the opposing army is still in play, which is good for the game. Plus shorter game.
Wait...it will actually be 5 turns? So only 4 turns to score? That's going to be a really tight squeeze to max out.
Some secondaries can be scored on your turn, but it'll definitely force people out of their deployment zones sooner.
It still restricts the total distance, and the with the buff to blast, that unit might start dwindling a little quicker and get a lot shorter. It's obvious they don't want singular units spread across the table interacting with so many different parts of the battlefield at once. They want one unit doing one job.
Right. But it doesn't prevent the thing you said it was designed to prevent. So either they are really bad at rules or it wasn't meant to prevent that. Similarly, if it's "obviously they don't want singular units spread across the table," and that they want "one unit doing one job," their attempt to make that happen doesn't work. So again, either they're really bad at rules or it wasn't meant to prevent that.
If they wanted to prevent that, "all models have to be within X of every other model" was a much simpler way to nip that in the bud, without any of the weird loopholes and edge cases this approach produces. So we have to think there's some reason they really wanted to still allow 30 man units to block out a whole table edge, so much so that they didn't take the much easier option to stop it.
Actions prevent units from doing multiple jobs, unless you're making a unit screen and perform an action.
I don't think they wanted to lock all units down, I think they just wanted to have a clear rule that prevented certain interactions (like blocking the long table edge, or daisy chaining models being added to the unit). The rule feels more like it was to deal with some of the abuse the 8th ed rule got.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 05:28:25
2020/06/30 05:31:42
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
A guy claiming to be a play tester dropped some tidbits on 4chan. Obviously it shouldn't be taken as gospel (cus 4chan, and also he made one slight mistake chatting about flyers falling back) but theres a few things worth considering:
1. Command reroll is more limited in what you can use it for, plus you reroll all dice.
2. Supreme command detachments are very different. He was vague, but you use them to bring a lord of war warlord (ie a primarch) and then get another detachment free.
3. He dropped points for the various detachments (mostly 2's and 3's) and some marine units (thunderfire cannon goes up a lot. Tactical are back to 15pts)
Again it could all be a troll but worth checking.
Hrmmm. Hard to tell if trolling or genuine mistake.
To fall back is a stratagem now, so only one unit can and it costs CP. Its one of the 6 basic Strats all armies get.
2020/06/30 05:32:18
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
2020/06/30 05:33:20
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
A guy claiming to be a play tester dropped some tidbits on 4chan. Obviously it shouldn't be taken as gospel (cus 4chan, and also he made one slight mistake chatting about flyers falling back) but theres a few things worth considering:
1. Command reroll is more limited in what you can use it for, plus you reroll all dice.
2. Supreme command detachments are very different. He was vague, but you use them to bring a lord of war warlord (ie a primarch) and then get another detachment free.
3. He dropped points for the various detachments (mostly 2's and 3's) and some marine units (thunderfire cannon goes up a lot. Tactical are back to 15pts)
Again it could all be a troll but worth checking.
Hrmmm. Hard to tell if trolling or genuine mistake.
To fall back is a stratagem now, so only one unit can and it costs CP. Its one of the 6 basic Strats all armies get.
He also goofed up the fly change as well, but corrected himself.
I mean those are both publicly available rules details, so I want to say mistake, but it's /tg/ and we're all desperate for info so it's equally likely to be a troll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
I don't even think the intent is to punish all 10 man units as much as it is to perhaps make hordes more attractive than MSU chaffe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 05:34:14
2020/06/30 05:48:25
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Jidmah wrote: I'm fairly sure that skyweavers in base-to-base are within 2" of the model behind their neighbor
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, you can deploy them in two lines of (or one of 4 and one of 2). The point is that it's deeply silly that:
6 skyweavers base to base in a line = unacceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 14 inches long.
5 skyweavers in a line 2" from one another = acceptable conga line under 9th edition rules. This line is 20 inches long.
14 inch line of base to base models = bad, 20 inch line of models spaced 2 inches apart from each other = fine.
If you have 6 Skyweavers lined in base-to-base up like this:
ABCDEF
Skyweaver A would be within 2" of both B and C, because their bases are something like 1.3 inches wide.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2020/06/30 05:51:17
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
It’s seems that the same fella on tg is claiming that all the regular marines + Deathwatch will be in one book, and supplements with unique units and such will eventually follow. The current supplements will stand with updated points until then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 06:11:51
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
2020/06/30 06:16:33
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Apple Peel wrote: It’s seems that the same fella on tg is claiming that all the regular marines + Deathwatch will be in one book, and supplements with unique units and such will eventually follow. The current supplements will stand with updated points until then.
Deathwatch being a supplement could help fix them.
Now to just put the Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves into supplement form and the whole mess with how they currently handle Primaris updates could be fixed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 06:17:01
2020/06/30 06:17:11
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Apple Peel wrote: It’s seems that the same fella on tg is claiming that all the regular marines + Deathwatch will be in one book, and supplements with unique units and such will eventually follow. The current supplements will stand with updated points until then.
A couple weeks ago I was told a similar thing from a source that was spot on on every 9th edition rule: I was told Marines get 'An Ultimate Marine Book' with all the Marines in the same Codex, and in future BA and SW are supplements like all the others. I also assumed that the old supplements would be legal until updated, but probably need some heavy erratas.
2020/06/30 06:17:44
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
2020/06/30 06:22:19
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
Yeah shudder that 10 strong unit would be better at SOMETHING. As it is 10 strong units are inferior to 2x5 in pretty much every way.
But then again when playtesters want marine msu gunlines rule it's no wonder this happens.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2020/06/30 06:26:54
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it has much more to do with nerfing 10 man units' ability to screen space along a table edge than with true horde units. There are enough other rules in 9th designed to punish big horde units, I think this particular rule is designed to make it so that taking two 5 man units gives you much better screening potential than 1 10-man unit.
Yeah shudder that 10 strong unit would be better at SOMETHING. As it is 10 strong units are inferior to 2x5 in pretty much every way.
But then again when playtesters want marine msu gunlines rule it's no wonder this happens.
10 man units are better targets for strats still.
I feel like this discourages spamming 10 man chaffe units more than it discourages 10 max sixed units.
2020/06/30 06:29:49
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
2020/06/30 06:33:11
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
Books generally have an 18 month lead time. To be ready for 9ths launch Necrons and Marines would need to be playtested along side the core rules.
2020/06/30 06:54:48
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
that is the point, there is no way we won't see a new Marine Codex in 2020 and it is rather sooner than later
so if they got one to test, they know it is coming and know how it changes
and having Primaris in one book with everyone else being a Supplement is expected by a lot because it is easier and cheaper for GW while they can sell mote books
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2020/06/30 06:57:42
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
That's just nonsense. Many of the 9th edition playtesters have been on for a long time. Same guys who told me basically the whole 9th edition rule book told me about chapter approved changes and codex books before. Because they playtest everything GW eventually releases.
Sure there might be a few celebrity names who GW brought on the 9th edition playtest group as a means of marketing, but plenty of guys have been on it a long, long time. The only thing that changes with the times is how much GW actually listens to the feedback those guys give back.
2020/06/30 07:17:45
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
Mutiple attacks at S4 is much moer than many units. - Or am i wrong????
Yeah, they DO have multiple attacks at S4 LOL Multiple S6 attacks is also more than most units have but I'm not charging Rhinos into units to kill stuff last I checked. It's almost as though both don't have melee capability!
SO ITS NOT FETHING ZERO IS IT
No it is, unless you're willing to argue Rhinos (multiple S6 attacks!!!!1!) AND Inceptors (same stats but potential mortal wounds on the charge, AND they have the movement to choose their target!!!1!) are totally melee capable as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also they aren't broken so get over it. Other units sucking hard at doing Melta, as it has been for basically 100% of the edition, doesn't make this unit broken. It simply makes them 6 Multi-Melta attacks for 100+ points without loss of accuracy.
NO you get over it - you want borken units for some reason.....what is your problem
You have yet to show why they're broken.
I can read the stats - can you?
Seriously what is fething problem - you made a pathetic claim that they have ZERO melee capability when thats patently rubbish. I did not say they were melee experts - just that they are not fething ZERO - you made that claim - but can;t possibly admit you are talking total ruibbish right?
Mutiple attacks at S4 is NOT ZERO - IS IT?
There thats done - if you cant undersand that - I give up trying to educate you.
You're still avoiding the question of Rhinos and Inceptors having melee capability. That's because you know you're wrong LOL.
What's the WS of a Rhino?
These Guys are WS3+
Rhinos are WS6+ and Inceptors are still WS3+.
That's why no-one is entertaining your argument because it's entirely fictitious from the outset.
Thats arguing in bad faith. These guys won't be taken for the CC ability but they certainly have enough CC ability to shoot and charge a IS etc off an objective which isnt bad for a unit attacjih the worst possibel target for it.
The entirety of his argument falls on "it has multiple S4 attacks". There are other units with multiple attacks at S6 that aren't good, and there are units with the same exact stats but strictly better at melee because of the mortal wound chance.
They aren't looking at it for the price of the unit. We already know they will be around Aggressor prices (so around 35-40 points). So we can pretty much conclude that their melee is garbage. It REALLY isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
I kinda agree with Slayer here, yes it's a good volume of melta shots at a fair price point, but you've got to get them there and their defensive stats aren't that amazing. Likewise in the era of having infinite height los blocking and -1 to hit terrain dotted about, there's good odds people will get the drop on these guys first.
Yea if only units could generically be guaranteed to alpha off a flanking position for only a single CP... Oh wait, now they can.
Slayer had a point, a poor one, but he couldn't resist being extreme as usual. He's part of the crowd that contributed to the idiotic redefining of the word literally through his hyperbole. So now he's moved onto other words like absolutely apparently
He has quoted himself several times in that chain, which contains the irrefutable evidence of his own failure. Yet his complete lack of humility drives him to dig deeper.
Except you paid cp for them to waltz on, take 8 wounds off say a leman russ and then get annihilated. They're good but they're not as broken as people are crying about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 07:18:56
2020/06/30 07:39:05
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
yukishiro1 wrote: Why would the playtesters know anything about the release schedule for future codexes? Seems like another sign that the guy is a faker.
He hasn’t claimed a schedule from my awareness, just that big marine book with supplements for everyone inside eventually.
But that's what I mean. Why would they have told playtesters for 9th anything about that? There's no reason they'd need to. And GW isn't generally in the business of letting out more info than they need to.
Unless they are so close to releasing it that they're already playtesting it too, in addition to the base 9th rules. Though there's been no indication from any of the actual, confirmed playtesters that that is the case.
The Tabletop Tactics guys explicitly said that they got involved in play testing too late for 9th core rules but have been playtesting new codices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 07:39:39
2020/06/30 09:17:13
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
[EDIT]: I found another version, so I'll summarise.
M8 3+ 3+ 6 6 7 4 10 3+
He's got claws that give him an extra two attacks (nothing to write home about) and his staff that's either S8 -4 D6 (D3 shots at 18") or +1 -3 D2.
Living Metal, +1 to We'll Be Back rolls for units within 3", and psykers within 9" suffer preils on any double.
His main rule is to try and be a Necron Fabius Bile, with his "Mechanical Augmentation" that he does at the end of the movement phase (or if he destroys a unit in HTH). It's a D3 rolls for a unit within 6" - +1S, +1T or +1BS for the rest of the game.
He costs 555 * 10 - 5500 + 80 points (that was my attempt at the obnoxious points listings people used to make). He costs 130 points.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/30 09:50:24
[EDIT]: I found another version, so I'll summarise.
M8
3+
3+
6
6
7
4
10
3+
He's got claws that give him an extra two attacks (nothing to write home about) and his staff that's either S8 -4 D6 (D3 shots at 18") or +1 -3 D2.
Living Metal, +1 to We'll Be Back rolls for units within 3", and psykers within 9" suffer preils on any double.
His main rule is to try and be a Necron Fabius Bile, with his "Mechanical Augmentation" that he does at the end of the movement phase (or if he destroys a unit in HTH). It's a D3 rolls for a unit within 6" - +1S, +1T or +1BS for the rest of the game.
He costs 555 * 10 - 5500 + 80 points (that was my attempt at the obnoxious points listings people used to make). He costs 130 points.
I'm guessing reddit links don't work on here or something, but yeah that's the gist of it. Considering the size of his model, maybe a bit underwhelming but for 130 pts I think he's alright. Certainly worth the 20 pts price increase on his old rules.
2020/06/30 09:53:19
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
nfe wrote: The Tabletop Tactics guys explicitly said that they got involved in play testing too late for 9th core rules but have been playtesting new codices.
Unless its in a new video, I think they said they were involved in play testing points for the new edition rather than new codexes. Which doesn't mean they are not doing codexes - but we are going to get a quasi universal Index in a few weeks time, and it would be nice if it isn't horribly broken on release.
