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.

Yeah, no big surprises, aside from the engagement range nerf, which just seems downright odd.

There's some little weird stuff here and there, but that's the thing that sticks out most to me.

Selfcontrol wrote:
I might be too tired to notice it, but I'm not seeing any change to the attack sequence.

I have the 8th edition rulebook next to me. It says :
- Roll to hit
- Roll to wound
- Allocate wound
- Save
- Resolve damages

I'm not seeing any difference with 9th edition.

The devil is in the details. In 8th, when you allocate the wound and save, you're done with that model and can move on to another model to allocate and save. In 9th, you must continue to allocate to the first model you chose until it is dead. So, for instance, if I shoot 4 bolter shots and a lascannon at one of your units, you used to be able to take the 4 bolter shots on regular Joes and then allocate the lascannon to your Storm Shield. Now, if one of your regular Joes takes all 4 bolter shots, he's now locked in to taking the lascannon as well.

Mission leaks
https://imgur.com/a/4rJ8Fwp

Selfcontrol wrote:
I might be too tired to notice it, but I'm not seeing any change to the attack sequence.

I have the 8th edition rulebook next to me. It says :
- Roll to hit
- Roll to wound
- Allocate wound
- Save
- Resolve damages

I'm not seeing any difference with 9th edition.

The difference is in who attacks must be allocated to (and is covered in that section, it might be a little tricky to find due to some pages being out of order). 8th requires attacks be allocated to a model that has taken damage until either the model makes all its saves, or is destroyed. If a model in a unit has not taken damage, the controlling player is free to allocate incoming attacks as they see fit.

9th adds a stipulation that if a model in a unit has had an attack allocated to it in the current phase, all subsequent attacks must then be allocated to it until it either makes all its saves or is destroyed.

For units with identical wounds and/or saves across the models in said unit, it's not a meaningful change. For those units that have differing saves and/or wounds characteristics its a significant addition.

 puma713 wrote:

The devil is in the details. In 8th, when you allocate the wound and save, you're done with that model and can move on to another model to allocate and save. In 9th, you must continue to allocate to the first model you chose until it is dead. So, for instance, if I shoot 4 bolter shots and a lascannon at one of your units, you used to be able to take the 4 bolter shots on regular Joes and then allocate the lascannon to your Storm Shield. Now, if one of your regular Joes takes all 4 bolter shots, he's now locked in to taking the lascannon as well.

Indeed.

Narative leaks

https://imgur.com/a/HkV9euC

Moving through terrain managed to give me a whole bunch of brand new questions.

Like, if you put your forest on a base that's 1.1 inches tall, is it impassable terrain now? Or at the very least a feature you cannot end a move on? What about the second level of buildings?

hahaha i'm doomed

 Latro_ wrote:
Mission leaks
https://imgur.com/a/4rJ8Fwp

NSFW!

 Latro_ wrote:
hahaha i'm doomed

I think a lot of folks are just gonna pull a "more like guidelines" on that account.

 Latro_ wrote:
hahaha i'm doomed

This is hilarious. And I love it.

 Latro_ wrote:
Mission leaks
https://imgur.com/a/4rJ8Fwp

Those watermarks are killing me. god bless 4chan

Jesus, secondaries are worth the same as primaries. That's a mess.

And these secondaries are all over the place re: how much you score off them and how hard they are to score. Why would you ever take slay the warlord when it's capped at only 6/15 total CP? First strike is also capped at 8/15.

No null deployments

yukishiro1 wrote:
Jesus, secondaries are worth the same as primaries. That's a mess.

45 Primary
45 Secondary
10 For Battle-Ready painted

I'd love to see if this really translates into tournament play. I guess we'll see.

 puma713 wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:
I might be too tired to notice it, but I'm not seeing any change to the attack sequence.

I have the 8th edition rulebook next to me. It says :
- Roll to hit
- Roll to wound
- Allocate wound
- Save
- Resolve damages

I'm not seeing any difference with 9th edition.

The devil is in the details. In 8th, when you allocate the wound and save, you're done with that model and can move on to another model to allocate and save. In 9th, you must continue to allocate to the first model you chose until it is dead. So, for instance, if I shoot 4 bolter shots and a lascannon at one of your units, you used to be able to take the 4 bolter shots on regular Joes and then allocate the lascannon to your Storm Shield. Now, if one of your regular Joes takes all 4 bolter shots, he's now locked in to taking the lascannon as well.

Thanks for the explanation. I re-red it again and now I'm noticing the difference.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Jesus, secondaries are worth the same as primaries. That's a mess.

Why? Its all just points. The only difference is secondaries give you a little more freedom.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
hahaha i'm doomed

I think a lot of folks are just gonna pull a "more like guidelines" on that account.

Liable to make pickup games obnoxious for some people.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Jesus, secondaries are worth the same as primaries. That's a mess.

Actually a lot of those secondary ovjectives can never give you 15 points.

I went to bed last night at 2am thinking that nothing new could possibly come out in the 6 hours between then and when I had to be logged into work.

 puma713 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
hahaha i'm doomed

This is hilarious. And I love it.

The best rule chance in this new edition!

changemod wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
hahaha i'm doomed

I think a lot of folks are just gonna pull a "more like guidelines" on that account.

Liable to make pickup games obnoxious for some people.

Feth, sincerly an extremely slow painter.....

Did I miss something or did they make the unchargable shipping crate thing again? Does Engagement range have a verticle distance? Maybe that's it.

Also YAY! Faction terrain is free!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I went to bed last night at 2am thinking that nothing new could possibly come out in the 6 hours between then and when I had to be logged into work.

Happy work day!

This secondary seems really cool at first glance. Although Knights will love that gak...

Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.

 Crimson wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
hahaha i'm doomed

This is hilarious. And I love it.

The best rule chance in this new edition!

It's pretty standard to include paint score in the docket for large events and small ones will just house rule it out.

 sinthes wrote:
Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.

I would wager that is in the tournament pack along with prepared positions.

 sinthes wrote:
Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.

As much as I don't like the rule of 3 in principle, GW's own game design means this would be bad juju. No way do they have balance anywhere near close enough to not end up with 8 hive tyrants again.

Not Online!!! wrote:

changemod wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
hahaha i'm doomed

I think a lot of folks are just gonna pull a "more like guidelines" on that account.

Liable to make pickup games obnoxious for some people.

Feth, sincerly an extremely slow painter.....

Personally, I have a lot of armies built up and am slow to paint them because I can only accept high standard paintjobs (as far as I can manage, not gonna claim they’re masterpieces to other people’s eyes but it’s full obsessive effort or no effort) from myself or why bother?

 sinthes wrote:
Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.

is in the matched play missions just leaked

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I went to bed last night at 2am thinking that nothing new could possibly come out in the 6 hours between then and when I had to be logged into work.

Happy work day!

This secondary seems really cool at first glance. Although Knights will love that gak...

No they wont, not when marines can Kill 2 knights in a single turn.
They can kill an entire 2k list in 3 turns currently and only look to be getting stronger.