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.
the_scotsman wrote: 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.
I'm more thinking for game balance than immersion. For something like a Riptide, it's a big change between tapping the edge of a building and being on the inside of the walls.
I think that might the best way to do it. You can be partially in, but "in" means part of your base/model needs to be inside the walls of a ruin. That means big base models like Riptides would need to commit to entering terrain.
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.
Ultras have that strat that lets them basically greater good. So I imagine they still gotta use the overwatch strat, but they can stack it with their own strat to fire with multiple units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 14:47:05
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.
You guys do know that the various Chaos god keywords are Faction Keywords, right? You could technically build a TZEENTCH army that uses Thousand Sons, Daemons, and CSM units; you just wouldn't have access to the detachments rules (most notably Objective Secured, but I think we could live with the loss of the Tzeentch Locus).
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
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.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
Death Guard shouldn't be an actual codex, nor should the snowflakey Angel Marines and Thousand Sons.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
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.
They're not that transparent with their rules writing. Apparently too thin skinned for criticism.
On the plus side, if this is the last bit of pr for 9th, maybe they'll finally start hyping up the new fw books. I'm been dying for those since they were announced at LVO (actually more like since the Indexes were released).
I woukdn't call it thin skinned with some of the crap the community has pulled in the past with attacking writers and the like.
Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 15:06:09
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
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.
When they did some of the FAQs to marines, etc... they talked about why they did the changes. That was great. They should to it more. In a honest, ruler-design way, and not in a marketing speech one, I mean.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
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.
When they did some of the FAQs to marines, etc... they talked about why they did the changes. That was great. They should to it more. In a honest, ruler-design way, and not in a marketing speech one, I mean.
Agreed. It lets the players know the logic behind the changes, even if we don't agree with them which smooths a lot of the knee jerk reactions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those of you Dark Angels fans looking to order Indomitus on the 11th, we can confirm that the Outriders will be able to gain the ‘Ravenwing’ keyword and the Bladeguard Veterans are fully inducted members of the Deathwing.
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?
It's definitely how it's intended. It's also stupid, but it's definitely what's intended based on the way the rules are written.
9th edition terrain is a huge bait and switch. They claim it makes drawing LOS harder, but it actually makes it far easier than it was in 8th edition in any competitive format.
9th is a shooting gallery edition at present, and the only way to make it not a shooting gallery is to physically block up all your gaps on your terrain (or layer multiple pieces of separate terrain right next to each other)...the exact thing the terrain rules were supposed to prevent.
When your carefully-selected promoters end their first game of 9th edition with the overall conclusion: "we have to board up our terrain to make this work," you know you done goofed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 15:38:36
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Hyperbole much?
While I agree some people get overly vitriolic (that twitch chat, good grief!), they are still just words, not getting stabbed. Explaining their rules making decisions would go a long way to reducing such vitriol by making most of us understand why they made the decisions they did. Admittedly there would still be some that would become vitriolic and angry, but some people just can't be reasonable. Hiding won't fix that.
Not explaining their decisions just gives ammunition to those who think they are made arbitrarily.
I'd argue the downgrade of LoS blocking only compared to ITC terrain rules, something most of the community has never played with. And even if it is a downgrade it's only for stuff inside of the terrain.
I think on the case of the entire table Obscuring does a better job of breaking up lines of sight than ITC's rule does. Yes, it doesn't help you avoid being a target if you're -inside- the terrain, but honestly screw magic boxes and that whole mess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 15:40:44
It sounds like you don't like the ITC rules, and that's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But it's simply wrong to say obscuring does a better job of blocking LOS than ITC's rules. It simply doesn't. Literally the only thing it blocks LOS better for is very tall models with less than 18W. Meanwhile, for everything else, losing LOS blocking if either you or the thing shooting you touches the terrain is a massive, massive decrease.
If you don't like the terrain rules every major competitive format in 40k used in 8th that's fine, and you should be very happy, since 9th makes it far easier to shoot stuff than those rules did.
yukishiro1 wrote: It sounds like you don't like the ITC rules, and that's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. But it's simply wrong to say obscuring does a better job of blocking LOS than ITC's rules. It simply doesn't. Literally the only thing it blocks LOS better for is very tall models with less than 18W. Meanwhile, for everything else, losing LOS blocking if either you or the thing shooting you touches the terrain is a massive, massive decrease.
If you don't like the terrain rules every major competitive format in 40k used in 8th that's fine, and you should be very happy, since 9th makes it far easier to shoot stuff than those rules did.
I'm indifferent to most ITC rules. I just don't like magic boxes.
That and I don't agree with the pedestal people insist on putting ITC or any of the competetive rulesets on. Yeah, they were functional, but they also made some of the problems with the edition worse.
I want to get games in with this new ruleset before I make any sweeping claims though because things on paper don't always match things on the table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 15:47:49
I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them. The first floor of ruins blocking LOS was universally embraced by pretty much every serious competitive format, and there's a reason for that: it worked. It created tactical games where models could survive on the table instead of immediately being blasted off. And, when GW didn't screw it up by releasing overpowered stuff like the new Space Marines, it resulted in by far the best balanced competitive meta the game has seen - right before SM 2.0 came out, the game was very balanced competitively between factions, for one of the first times in its history.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time, we can handle it" and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after a bunch of testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins to avoid planet bowling ball." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 15:54:15
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time," and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after our testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While I agree with this, it's a relatively simple fix. Just change what counts as being in terrain to models wholly within for Obscuring terrain. Then at the very least you have to enter the building to see through it, which is what makes sense.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time," and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after our testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While I agree with this, it's a relatively simple fix. Just change what counts as being in terrain to models wholly within for Obscuring terrain. Then at the very least you have to enter the building to see through it, which is what makes sense.
That would improve things a bit, but I don't think it's a fix, except to the extent that it completely prevents some categories of stuff from being able to do so, because tanks etc probably can't enter the building completely. And I'm not sure it's a great fix to just rule out a bunch of stuff from being able to do it completely, while letting other stuff continue to do it with impunity.
I mean it would make infantry good again I guess. But it doesn't seem like a complete fix.
The obvious solution was having all the borders of an obscuring terrain piece block LOS to and from unless you or the thing you're shooting is on the edge (say within 2" of it, whether inside or outside). In other words, you can shoot into a building from just outside it, but not from halfway across the table, and you can shoot out of a building from inside it if you're at the edge on the direction you're shooting to, but not if you're in the middle or the far edge. And anything that can shoot out can be shot at. But precisely because they didn't choose this even though it was an obvious solution, I think it means they made a deliberate choice to severely town down LOS blocking in 9th vis a vis the competitive standard in 8th, while claiming they were doing the opposite. So you have to think they wanted this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 16:02:52
tneva82 wrote: So i say orks shouldn't be own army. It works both ways. You say others factions shouldn't exists, other can wish yours go away.
Dg in particular. That used to be 1 unit. Even less than harlequins. Who had multiple entries in 2nd ed. Great harlequins, shadow seer, solitaire, mimics...lot more than 1 entry. More than death guard.
Remove death guard! Back to single squad in csm with you!
The master of argument misrepresentation and strawmen strikes again! I never said that harlequins shouldn't exist. They just shouldn't exist in the way they are now, with two options to solve that problem. One is giving them a proper codex instead of that joke they have now. The other is giving them all the options of their parent faction.
DG have gotten a fully fledged out codex, and harlequins are what? A troops unit, a biker unit, a vehicle and a cast of support characters. Your average christmas battleforce has more unit variety than the entire harlequin codex.
If you actively decide to play an army that has no options, you don't get to complain about it afterwards. Splinter factions like this have the same problem in every game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, most importantly, Thousand Sons shouldn't have Ahriman (and DG shouldn't have Typhus).
They are both their respective Primarchs Enemy No. 1, kinda split off doing their own renegade thing and/or hang out with the Black Legion.
You might want to go read some novels on Typhus.
Yeah, people who want to play harlequinns are just all morons right? Why don't they play a real army. Like space marines.
Jesus some people.
"Man I wish my army had more options and wasn't getting nerfed"
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them. The first floor of ruins blocking LOS was universally embraced by pretty much every serious competitive format, and there's a reason for that: it worked. It created tactical games where models could survive on the table instead of immediately being blasted off. And, when GW didn't screw it up by releasing overpowered stuff like the new Space Marines, it resulted in by far the best balanced competitive meta the game has seen - right before SM 2.0 came out, the game was very balanced competitively between factions, for one of the first times in its history.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time, we can handle it" and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after a bunch of testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins to avoid planet bowling ball." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While i agree that 8th was getting better towards the end before GW dropped the Marines on the meta, I would have to point out that we spent most of the edition dealing with some wacky meta nonsense too.
Not to mention all the indirect fire spam because they became way better than their points costs suggested when over half the table was effectively invisible.
I'm not trying to say GW's rules are perfect, far from it, I'm just saying that I'm always hesitant to start making sweeping claims without actively playing the game.
That said, I've got a few army projects I'll be working on, mainly for Crusade, so between GSC, Iyanden Craftworlds and Black Templars I'll be running a wide range of stuff this edition so as the meta inevitably changes and shifts and we see the game change and shift I should always be able to get some fun games in.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks the competitive rules the community came up with were perfect. But they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, because GW totally dropped the ball in 8th on terrain rules and it required the community to step in to fix them.
Now GW has said "leave it to us this time," and people seem willing to go along with that at first. So we'll see. But alarm bells should be ringing at GWHQ when their chosen promoters end their first promotion video with "yeah, after our testing, we've decided we need to board up the windows on our ruins." When that is precisely what GW claimed these rules were designed so that you didn't have to do.
While I agree with this, it's a relatively simple fix. Just change what counts as being in terrain to models wholly within for Obscuring terrain. Then at the very least you have to enter the building to see through it, which is what makes sense.
That would improve things a bit, but I don't think it's a fix, except to the extent that it completely prevents some categories of stuff from being able to do so, because tanks etc probably can't enter the building completely. And I'm not sure it's a great fix to just rule out a bunch of stuff from being able to do it completely, while letting other stuff continue to do it with impunity.
I mean it would make infantry good again I guess. But it doesn't seem like a complete fix.
The obvious solution was having all the borders of an obscuring terrain piece block LOS to and from unless you or the thing you're shooting is on the edge (say within 2" of it, whether inside or outside). In other words, you can shoot into a building from just outside it, but not from halfway across the table, and you can shoot out of a building from inside it if you're at the edge on the direction you're shooting to, but not if you're in the middle or the far edge. And anything that can shoot out can be shot at. But precisely because they didn't choose this even though it was an obvious solution, I think it means they made a deliberate choice to severely town down LOS blocking in 9th vis a vis the competitive standard in 8th, while claiming they were doing the opposite. So you have to think they wanted this.
It's not perfect, but I think it fixes the majority of issues that arise with the least changes to the current rules as written. And yes, it hampers big stuff more than infantry, but that's very much the point. Like the example they gave on WarCom showing a knight on the opposite side on a building not being able to see the infantry on the otherside - all the knight has to do is touch the building with it's base and it can smoke them with ease.
I'm really hoping this is clarified to be how it works.
Funny how the Dark Angels faction focus states that they can mitigate losses to overcharged plasma with litanies......err, no sir, can't do that anymore, the +1 to hit will not help you there. get back to your playtesting, lol
Yeah, people who want to play harlequinns are just all morons right? Why don't they play a real army. Like space marines.
Jesus some people.
"Man I wish my army had more options and wasn't getting nerfed"
"What a loser, play a real army"
The funniest bit is he said in the same breath "and you can't have more options to adjust your force before the battle - even though that's literally what GW gave you in the PA book just came out - because that isn't fair because my codex with 5x as many choices doesn't have that, all armies should be the same that way and if I can't have it you can't either."
Talk about contradictory arguments.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 16:27:04
bullyboy wrote: Funny how the Dark Angels faction focus states that they can mitigate losses to overcharged plasma with litanies......err, no sir, can't do that anymore, the +1 to hit will not help you there. get back to your playtesting, lol
I mean technically they can, until the datasheets get changed or FAQ'd. So far only the new Assault Intercessor plasma pistol has the new wording.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Hyperbole much?
While I agree some people get overly vitriolic (that twitch chat, good grief!), they are still just words, not getting stabbed. Explaining their rules making decisions would go a long way to reducing such vitriol by making most of us understand why they made the decisions they did. Admittedly there would still be some that would become vitriolic and angry, but some people just can't be reasonable. Hiding won't fix that.
Not explaining their decisions just gives ammunition to those who think they are made arbitrarily.
I'm pretty sure the sort of moron who would send death threats would probably do it regardless, but I do think a lot of us would really be interested to hear the thoughts on why they did specific things. I would love to hear their response to their chosen playtesters concluding their first video with "well guys we're going to have to board up our windows on our terrain to make this not planet bowling ball edition," for example.
Leth wrote: Apparently not liking something makes you thin skinned these days
“Hey I want to stab you”
“no thanks I would rather you didn’t”
“God, why is everyone so thin skinned these days, just because we stabbed you last time doesn’t excuse your not wanting to be stabbed”.
Seriously with the amount of vitriol in this thread alone I am surprised they communicate at all.
Hyperbole much?
While I agree some people get overly vitriolic (that twitch chat, good grief!), they are still just words, not getting stabbed. Explaining their rules making decisions would go a long way to reducing such vitriol by making most of us understand why they made the decisions they did. Admittedly there would still be some that would become vitriolic and angry, but some people just can't be reasonable. Hiding won't fix that.
Not explaining their decisions just gives ammunition to those who think they are made arbitrarily.
rules writers used to get regular death threats
Really? Ok, that explains why they might be hesitant to talk. Good grief, it's toy soldiers. I hope the people making those threats were thoroughly prosecuted.
Maybe that's why they don't put author credits in the books either.
Thanks again, Jesse! How are you planning to hunt the Fallen in the new edition? For those of you Dark Angels fans looking to order Indomitus on the 11th, we can confirm that the Outriders will be able to gain the ‘Ravenwing’ keyword and the Bladeguard Veterans are fully inducted members of the Deathwing
from 4chan:
no idea on the order of release, but marines (which is a massive book 200+pgs) has all chapters in it, even the specials like BA, SW, DA. then Orks is finished as well I know
both together make kind of sense
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
no idea on the order of release, but marines (which is a massive book 200+pgs) has all chapters in it, even the specials like BA, SW, DA. then Orks is finished as well I know
I really hope that this is true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 16:53:05
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It won't. GW knows it can charge a stupid amount for the Marine books being separate because the special snowflake players buy into the whole "they're a unique army!!!!!1!" garbage. More fake stuff from 4chan as expected.
you know, GW can charge double by releasing a Marine Codex with Supplements instead of Snowflake Codex
and books are expensive, much more than the Miniatures, needing only to print one book that all Marine players buy gets them more profit than having several book that only a small group buys
yet, it is the next logical step to remove old Marines by doing no dedicated Old-Marine Codex in 9th
also maintaining one Codex with all Primaris stuff is easier and cheaper than
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
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.
14000
4000 
Hyperbole much? 
