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.

At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)

I didn't did that because I always chose my psychic powers to benefit me (I mean playing custodes, Tau, Sisters of battle and dark angels is not like I have many choices), but some people did it.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.

I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.

Completely agree. In my opinion theres only two ways to organize Chaos and have it make sense: You have a Hordes of Chaos ala 6th in fantasy or you have a book for each god, both mortal and daemon, like Age of Sigmar. Then you can even add a special mixed subfaction like they did with the Bel'akor one for AoS.

 Galas wrote:
At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)

I didn't did that because I always chose my psychic powers to benefit me (I mean playing custodes, Tau, Sisters of battle and dark angels is not like I have many choices), but some people did it.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.

I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.

Completely agree. In my opinion theres only two ways to organize Chaos and have it make sense: You have a Hordes of Chaos ala 6th in fantasy or you have a book for each god, both mortal and daemon, like Age of Sigmar. Then you can even add a special mixed subfaction like they did with the Bel'akor one for AoS.

Bring back Khorne Daemonkin - most fun army I've ever played

 Galas wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I want to run them as a useful unit, not as summonable chaff for CP.

I just want them to do this proper like they did in AoS. Blades of Khorne has Khorne Daemons and Mortals and both can share keywords and get faction traits and whatnot. The same rule should apply to the special Chaos forces in 40k. Currently AoS has a superior Chaos God approach compared to 40k.

Completely agree. In my opinion theres only two ways to organize Chaos and have it make sense: You have a Hordes of Chaos ala 6th in fantasy or you have a book for each god, both mortal and daemon, like Age of Sigmar. Then you can even add a special mixed subfaction like they did with the Bel'akor one for AoS.

Exactly. I am just surprised that they found a really good solution for AoS but are somehow unable to find it again in 40k. Plus that solution also helps GW to sell models as the army range is larger and more diverse.

They were able to re-design AoS from the ground up. Of course there is a learning curve to that, but compared to previous rules-sets they have generated, they learned extremely well.

With 40k they haven’t been able to summon the courage to do the required reset on some of the dreadful inherited lore and collection assemblages. Chaos in particular suffers from confused mish-mash of compelling and dreadful dreadful lore in this part – no-one really knows what it is or what the codex is supposed to represent and the whole faction needs a basic reset on what it actually is. AoS has executed this brilliantly and created 4 distinct and compelling factions comprising chaos. 40k is a absolute mess where half the ‘chaos’ faction aren’t even chaotics.

 Galas wrote:
At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)
.

Many of the relics and traits are specific as well so if selecting psychics is fine because it's specific so should relics and traits.

tneva82 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
At least were I play, relics and warlords traits were selected in your lists. The only thing you chose on the table after knowing your opponent were things like sisters of battle sacred rites and psychic powers (Because psychic powers are in many cases extremely specific)
.

Many of the relics and traits are specific as well so if selecting psychics is fine because it's specific so should relics and traits.

I believe they are worded differently. The relics you could chose here are the ones you pay CP for because you technically pay the CP on the game, just like you do to upgrade some units with pre-game strats.

One thing I think we might to reconsider/get clarified for 9th is what counts as being in cover.

Watching that 9th ed battle by tabletop titans and seeing a Riptide touch the outside of a building and immediately be able to see through it rubbed me the wrong way, and doesn't seem to be how the rule is intended.

I think obscuring terrain will work a lot better if you have to actually get inside the building to get the benefit. Maybe base has to be more than 50% within?

 Jidmah wrote:
No, I actually meant PA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Not to mention that harlequins should never have been a codex to begin with.

Harlequins were one of the first Codexes and have always had a great variety of unique units, weapons - many of which are no longer there.

Harlequins were a single unit entry in the eldar codices until 7th edition.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To elaborate: Harlequins should either have been evolved into a full-blown codex or remained part of craftworld/drukhari. Their codex is a joke compared even to small factions like DG, GK or custodes. They are basically assassins/inquisitors minus any help for joining their parent faction.

IanVanCheese wrote

One thing I think we might to reconsider/get clarified for 9th is what counts as being in cover.

Watching that 9th ed battle by tabletop titans and seeing a Riptide touch the outside of a building and immediately be able to see through it rubbed me the wrong way, and doesn't seem to be how the rule is intended.

I think obscuring terrain will work a lot better if you have to actually get inside the building to get the benefit. Maybe base has to be more than 50% within?

Yeah the terrain stuff had me scratching my head watching that batrep. There's going to be quite a few clarifications/faq points day one I can imagine, but as a student of (GW) history I can say there always is. That's why I tend to reserve harsh criticisms until I have a few games under my belt and have given the guys at GW to notice the things they didn't think through.

Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.

Right?

This isn't the first time the question of what counts with cover has happened, and the last time they tried to fix it we got True Line Of Sight.

Now True Line Of Sight has been appended backwards.

IanVanCheese wrote:
One thing I think we might to reconsider/get clarified for 9th is what counts as being in cover.

Watching that 9th ed battle by tabletop titans and seeing a Riptide touch the outside of a building and immediately be able to see through it rubbed me the wrong way, and doesn't seem to be how the rule is intended.

I think obscuring terrain will work a lot better if you have to actually get inside the building to get the benefit. Maybe base has to be more than 50% within?

Not actually sure how much use that battle report is now as the Imperial Fists list is using the wrong models for his secondary objective it should be the contemptors

The tau list can NOT have 2 of the same signature systen.

 AduroT wrote:
Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.

Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.

IanVanCheese wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.

Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.

Not really I think you are assigning intent beyond what GW intended. Also if GW wants to know how big a building etc is in footprint to make in/on clearer how about they add some floors or bases to their terrain.

Ice_can wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.

Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.

Not really I think you are assigning intent beyond what GW intended. Also if GW wants to know how big a building etc is in footprint to make in/on clearer how about they add some floors or bases to their terrain.

I mean the intent is clearly to break up firing lanes. It does that, but it does it better if models actually have to get into the terrain instead of putting a toe in.

IanVanCheese wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Trying to decide how much of a base is on top of something obscured under the base is the worst rule. Either touching or completely within are the two options you want to choose from.

Entirely within works better than just touching, but I feel like it screws certain huge units (like riptides)... but then again, that's literally what the obscured rule is supposed to do, so meh.

I mean you both highlight the inherent problem that not all models are created, or modeled, equally, so there's going to have to be some sort of all-or-nothing concept for them to benefit. The hope would be that it isn't super exploitable or silly, but I think it'll probably end up that way short of GW adding keywords to models instead of terrain. Like unless they say only Beasts, Infantry, & Swarms gain cover if touching and everything else has to have its base wholly within, you'll always have Riptides tip-toeing through the ruins.

I may be inferring what GW is trying to write, but I equate in terrain as the distinction `within` and `fully within`.

As Tabletop Titans were playtesters, I do not think they played the terrain incorrectly. They did advise they were goin to update their terrain for the exact reason you all noticed; planet bowling ball once the Riptides touched the central ruin.

 Sarigar wrote:
I may be inferring what GW is trying to write, but I equate in terrain as the distinction `within` and `fully within`.

As Tabletop Titans were playtesters, I do not think they played the terrain incorrectly. They did advise they were goin to update their terrain for the exact reason you all noticed; planet bowling ball once the Riptides touched the central ruin.

Yeah, it may just be that we need to change the kind of terrain we're putting out there. A quick fix to that massive ruin they had would be to split it in two for the purposes of rules, so being in the first half doesn't let you shoot all the way through. Normally you wouldn't need this, but that ruin they had covered like half the table lol.

Toe in or toe out is irrelevant. There’s always going to be an arbitrary line that seems absurd. Sure, you think it’s dumb that if a Riptide puts a toe in a ruin it can see thru it. But is it any less dumb than a Riptide rendered blind because a single toe is outside of the ruin? In my opinion touching terrain is the easiest way to designate a model is effected by it.

At least we have the Most Important Rule, right?

 AduroT wrote:
Toe in or toe out is irrelevant. There’s always going to be an arbitrary line that seems absurd. Sure, you think it’s dumb that if a Riptide puts a toe in a ruin it can see thru it. But is it any less dumb than a Riptide rendered blind because a single toe is outside of the ruin? In my opinion touching terrain is the easiest way to designate a model is effected by it.

I prefer fully in, it forces you to commit more to being in the terrain, if you want the benefits of being in there. Touching terrain counting mkaes decisions easier, takes away gameplay opportunities since it makes a lot of terrain largely useless as cover.

We'll see though, like I said we may just need to start breaking up terrain into more, smaller bits of building that each count as their own ruins, rather than having full building outline count as one single ruin.

I didn't have time to no read any of the pots since the core rules were revealed. But I just wanted to vent, why on earth are they taking a dump on melee in 40k? Unlimited overwatch still exists? No changes to falling back? A ton of new restrictions to charging units and melee, especially assault units with fly and harlequins?

As of now me and my buddy I usually play with are sticking with 8th edition. 9th edition is only a step backwards. Not a single step forward. The terrain rules are clunky and unnecessarily add contention to the game just like these new coherency rules. Also for no reason they through in a nerf to all melee armies which needed help.

Wat lol

Tetsu0 wrote:
Unlimited overwatch still exists? .

Only for Tau.

Tetsu0 wrote:
I didn't have time to no read any of the pots since the core rules were revealed. But I just wanted to vent, why on earth are they taking a dump on melee in 40k? Unlimited overwatch still exists? No changes to falling back? A ton of new restrictions to charging units and melee, especially assault units with fly and harlequins?

As of now me and my buddy I usually play with are sticking with 8th edition. 9th edition is only a step backwards. Not a single step forward. The terrain rules are clunky and unnecessarily add contention to the game just like these new coherency rules. Also for no reason they through in a nerf to all melee armies which needed help.

Overwatch is a once per phase strat, it's been toned down heavily, flyers can't shoot if they fall back, you have a strat to deal mortal wounds if someone falls back out of combat (though it's not great), there's more LoS blocking, negative hit modifiers and cover in general and the board is shorter so melee can get in easier.

I'm fairly sure it's too early to rule out melee, especially when you've clearly missed base rules.

Eh. I think the permissive option is better for a general rule, since by default gw is assuming terrain doesnt have a base.

In a game where you could be using cardboard boxes or you could be using plastic terrain kits, youre always going to need the rule to be "define what "within" means for your terrain."

If defining within as "on the outside base that goes around your ruin" is immersion breaking, then dont define that as within.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned

Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.

This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.

Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?

I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.

It takes out a huge part of the game, and a major opportunity to level the playing field between lists that aren't matched well. This will just increase the chances of getting a bad match-up and being able to do nothing about it. Less strategy, more "my list just can't beat your list." Both feels bad moments, IMO. You could tell they were really bummed about it too, barely even trying to put a brave face on it.

Bullcrap. In any other edition that was considered list tailoring and cheating and I am glad it was removed. There were only a couple factions that exploited that which only added to those factions dominance. The obvious elephant in the room is Marines, with more psychic powers, warlord traits and relics then all the xenos combined.

Tabletop titans are some of the shallowest guys, that essentially give you the amazing advice of.... Telling you to play netlists They are parrots that just play the exact same way most forums echo. It's not the worst advice, but it's certainly not innovative of deep either, so I'll gladly ignore their hot takes.

I mean, GW ported over the ITC shopping cart for objectives so there really should be no excuse for bad mismatches. If you have a dud psychic power it looks like you can always smite multiple times, which BTW I don't think was unintentional. Originally they restricted smite by one cast per caster in the 8th rules and later patched in the +1 to each subsequent attempt. I don't think you need both. They may need to address T-Sons and grey knights, but they can always nerf those two specifically. You can also use the psychic objectives alternatively if you think your power is a dud.

As for WLT and relics, maybe your armies general shouldn't have mutable characteristics and relic gear between every engagement lol. It always felt worse if I am playing DE or Necrons and I have no psychic powers, and my relics are always the same because I have about 1 useful one per doctrine and I play a marine player who gets to tailor half his freebee power ups just to rub it in when he was already the more dominant faction.

I'd wager it takes better critical thinking and finds the better strategist when they actually need to adapt to the fog of war rather then list tailor with perfect information every damned time.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Tetsu0 wrote:
Unlimited overwatch still exists? .

Only for Tau.

That we know. Seeing they mentioned ultramarines along tau wouldn't surprise if ultra's gain same ability. Pretty safe bet tau won't be only one.

In other news tabletop tactics had br with new points. 2k of sisters seems to have been 1700 under 8th. Well kills theory of some that codex points were for 9th(lol).

For some weird reason condemptor boltgun went to 5 pts. Rf1, s4, ap0, dam d3 vs psykers is sooooo op... hoping guy who gave notes from video(behind paywall for me) was joking. 5 pts for that is joke. Even at 1 pts it's never done anything even vs tsons. I just have couple as they look good and tend to run couple points short so fun cool looking additions.

Either they count as bolters or i rip weapon off if true. No way i pay 5 pts for those.

Today is the last 40K Daily episode.

Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Today is the last 40K Daily episode.

Makes sense really. The dam broke yesterday, so they can't exactly drip feed parts of rules to us anymore.

They could spend a week talking to the rules team and discussing changes and why each change was made, but that would make sense.