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 Phazer wrote:I'd just be content for GW to let FW bring the R&H models back. Even as a limited run or something. They were a fantastic range.
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
General Kroll wrote:I do wonder what the future holds for FW making things for 40k. They seem entirely focused on boxed games and HH stuff these days. When was the last dedicated 40k Model? Was it the big giant floaty space marine tank thing?
jivardi wrote: Who's been saying the Sisters POINTS were for 9th edition? That's a really far out theory if that's the case. It's been assumed since the Sisters codex was the most recent that the "codex" rules/abilities/traits were probably written with 9th in mind. That's likely but the Sisters ponits costs being 9th compatible is not something i've seen and I've been lurking Dakka for the past year or so. LOL
The argent shroud warlord trait sure makes more sense in 9th. But GW used this kind of rules way earlier than the Sisters dex I think.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
The Phazer wrote:I'd just be content for GW to let FW bring the R&H models back. Even as a limited run or something. They were a fantastic range.
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
General Kroll wrote:I do wonder what the future holds for FW making things for 40k. They seem entirely focused on boxed games and HH stuff these days. When was the last dedicated 40k Model? Was it the big giant floaty space marine tank thing?
It was either that or the big Necron construct.
You’re right it was the big Necron thing. There was also the big fanfare about the 40k character series, which seems to have come to nought.
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.
I've read the rules. Overwatch is in the main rules and says certain units will have the rules for overwatch and there is no restriction in the core rules for how many times or units can overwatch a turn. There's nowhere it explicitly states that overwatch is now just a strategem, or refer to page 28 or whatever for the fire overwatch strategem.
Because of the new terrain rules and the bonus you can get to overwatch too makes it even harder to make a single critical charge. Especially when this is combined with the super restrictive coherency and shorter engagement distance. There's also minus 2 to charge distance for charging through certain terrain.
Don't even bring up that terrible mw fall back strategem that benefits non-melee units the most and the only units that would ever want to use it are going to be horde chaff units. Elite melee units and monstrous creatures don't have their melee prowess accounted for in this strat and it will be useless for them. It doesn't make sense lore or game wise.
The board being shorter is a double edged sword, which also means more firepower or rapid fire in range of your units. It is going to be a lot harder to make a charge or even move across the battlefield in 9th edition mainly because of new terrain rules, and not being able to reroll one die on a charge. Which means more melee units left out to dry.
There's still no real detriment to just falling back from combat. Especially now that multi-charges are prohibitively risky, spreading out during combat to maximize models in engagement is risky and severely limited, also the engagement range has been considerably lessened.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 22:21:42
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've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
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've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
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've been waiting 2 years for them since FW let it slip that main studio had taken on new rules for 40k, I just hope they aren't hiding them because they are terribly underpowered and they know the reaction will be bad.
That's my fear as well. That and the negative reaction if they squat any fw armies (please don't squat my R&H).
I guess I don't understand, what is the difference between renegades and heretics and traitor guard?
Renegades and heretics are closer to being malformed pdf/underground resistances, with more mutants and various heretical additions. Like a Heretek backing an uprising with their machines-monstrosities. Or using xenos tech in conjunction with chaos magics?
Traitor Guard are generally just that, guard regiments that have turned traitor, taking all their standard equipment with them, though they may be aesthetically more chaos. They're still justy guard with a different coat of paint.
The R&H rules from IA 13 in 7th allowed you to build an army that would fit either of those descriptions. You could have traitor pdf, mutant rabble, veterans, even better veterans (grenadiers), hereteks, and more. The rule set allowed for loads of customization. Probably the most since csm 3.5. It was great. And they replaced it with the mess that we got in the fw Indexes.
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.
I've read the rules. Overwatch is in the main rules and says certain units will have the rules for overwatch and there is no restriction in the core rules for how many times or units can overwatch a turn. There's nowhere it explicitly states that overwatch is now just a strategem, refer to page 28 or whatever for the fire overwatch strategem.
The Core Rules don’t need to tell you how many times you’re allowed to fire Overwatch. They describe how it works.
Unless a unit has Overwatch innately as an ability or uses the Stratagem, tell me what permits it to fire Overwatch?
See? It’s all covered without preventing future design changes.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
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.
Did someone stab them?
Nope, but they got death threats from the community.
So tell me, if your attempts to communicate resulted in death threats would you continue to try and communicate or would you decide not to take the risk for your family? If your genuine attempts to do your job well resulted in people saying you are a horrible person who maliciously was trying to ruin their lives would you want to continue to communicate?
Seriously, it’s kinda sad how angry people get, I lost 6k repairing my car after hitting a deer and I am less upset at the deer that these people get over having to actually paint their minis. People are still complaining about Matt Ward and it’s been what? 10 years.
I am super hype for 9th edition, just the force org changes means mono faction will be more viable. I just hope they resolve the storm shield issues quickly as well as give my Deathwatch some love.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 22:22:00
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
Meh, maybe as Ab Humans to mix into other factions but if we get a Space Dwarves faction I want them more like KO from Fantasy: greedy mercenaries who harness the warp through technology instead of being psykers.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
Yeah, with such contrasting turns it was hard to see how armies fair in 9th for sure. I was hoping it would highlight GSC and melee were good, but I guess things will become clear once everything is out and people start playing
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 23:37:58
Agreed, but the Traitor Guardsmen from Blackstone Fortress would also make great infantry for R&H if they were expanded into a multi part kit.
GW won't fail to capitalize on that.
What? Sorry. Just got distracted thinking of the number of times GW failed to capitalize on things.
Cultists, ork deffkoptas (and warbuggies/trakks/skorchas), RTS spinoff videogames of popular IPs (fantasy or space battles), eldar revamps, chaos legions, etc...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 00:08:11
Leth wrote: Seriously, it’s kinda sad how angry people get, I lost 6k repairing my car after hitting a deer and I am less upset at the deer that these people get over having to actually paint their minis. People are still complaining about Matt Ward and it’s been what? 10 years.
Yes, but the deer is more upset at you that these peoples get over having to actually paint their minis. You killed it, after all.
Prepare to be haunted by angry deer ghost!!!
BEER AND AXES INCOMING. I REPEAT, BEER AND AXES INCOMING!
And not the squig beer version, or the frostaxe version.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Gadzilla666 wrote: DDK will be fine, they mentioned working on their rules in one of the streams. It's everything else I'm worried about.
I want Renegades and Heretics back. Not the crap ones they gave us in the index, but the options we had from Vraks. It was literally the most flavorful ruleset GW has released.
Preaching to the choir. Though it isn't Vraks we need back, its IA 13. I want my Demagogue Devotions back, and veterans, with the option to upgrade them to grenadiers again, and carapace armour.
And don't forget a vox that actually works.
Imagines old vox and platoon structures.....
Feth me how did they EVER release those Indexes...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 00:20:30
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 00:25:22
From what I heard the FW team had an extremely limited amount of time to produce the 8th edition indexes. Add to that the passing of Alan Bligh right before 8th, and I'm guessing the studio was pretty messed up and under intense workload. It's a real shame, as I think the FW Guard index is the worst book that I have ever bought from GW. I'm a huge FW fan and really hope to see a good set of rules from them this time.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
Given the last year if Marines are still where they are or somehow even more out of line I don't know how I can reconcile their ability to access their game.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I got bored and put in all the leaked Space Marine point values into excel and calculated their cost change as a percent of their original value. For units with different load-out options like tanks, I included different load-out options and did the price comparison for those options instead of just the model so we could see how weapon point cost changes impacted the units overall costs. For Units where all models are the same (aggressors, hellblasters, etc.) I just calculated the difference for 1 model. For the devastator squad, the values are for the sum of four marines, the sergeant, and four of the listed heavy weapons to give the total cost of the squad.
...
All of these costs for HQ are just for the base models as we don't have the prices of melee weapons. For all other force organization sections, melee weapons prices are assumed to be the same as before.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
That's not really comforting.
Welcome to every edition change ever, only GW is actively trying to fix the cracks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 00:50:12
Thank god that indirect fire seems to have finally got the points nerf it deserved in 8th...though in 9th, with LOS being so much easier to draw compared to competitive 8th, I almost wonder if it went too far. Oh well. I still won't mourn it even if it means we never see a thunderfire cannon again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 01:00:35
MPJ wrote: Just watched the first 9th edition bat rep rep TTT and I couldn’t get brought it. That was mostly down to such disparity between turns of Chef and Beard, so it was obvious which way he battle would go. However, I made some observations from what I saw
Each army went up by 250/300 pts from 8th
Definitely need to put down plenty of terrain (GW recommends up to twenty pieces for a 2000pt game), especially anything that can be deemed dense as the -1 to hit helps. Was quite easy to ignore obscuring however, but that depends on unit and terrain choices
Secondaries can be quite lopsided depending on what you choose and depending on dice rolls etc as at the end of turn one *SPOLIERS* Chef had 3VP to Beard’s 20. That’s also in part to the very different turns, so it shouldn’t have been such a large gap
Blast weapons can be brutal and quite obnoxious and definitely encourages MSU. Still comes come down to dice rolls of course, but an exorcist with conflagration missiles shooting at 11+ model units get EIGHTEEN shots! Someone mentioned in the comments that Stu Black and other playtesters said it’s minimum 3 shots PER DICE, which TTT replied as unknown to them. I’m sure it’s minimum per total though
Fall back should have been a strat as like in 8th, Berd pulled two immolators out of combat, with the penalty they couldn’t shoot, but it allowed the units they were in combat with to be shot as normal. Beard lost one sister due coherency, but then brought it back with a hospitaller. They were unsure if that was allowed, as there’s a difference between models killed and models fled
Never watched till the end, so perhaps it wasn’t so one sided, but the comments suggested that wasn’t the case and thus my observations make me completely wrong. There should be another bat rep tomorrow, but on YouTube. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone else that’s watched it
TTT tend to struggle with GSC because it's such a thinking army, but its none of their main factions. I'd also say Chef's list looked weaker than Beards on paper. Also also, Beard was rolling like a madman. He had like 5/10 of his 6++ in one turn on his tanks.
It was cool to see the new rules in action, but yeah, no a great example of game/army balance
This is very very very bad.
If those marine leaks are true, marines are going up by barely 10% across the board. Meanwhile here we have an incredibly mediocre SoB list kicked up by almost 20%. If every other army follows suit, we're looking at another emergency FAQ bumping marines up BEST CASE.
I got bored and put in all the leaked Space Marine point values into excel and calculated their cost change as a percent of their original value. For units with different load-out options like tanks, I included different load-out options and did the price comparison for those options instead of just the model so we could see how weapon point cost changes impacted the units overall costs. For Units where all models are the same (aggressors, hellblasters, etc.) I just calculated the difference for 1 model. For the devastator squad, the values are for the sum of four marines, the sergeant, and four of the listed heavy weapons to give the total cost of the squad.
...
All of these costs for HQ are just for the base models as we don't have the prices of melee weapons. For all other force organization sections, melee weapons prices are assumed to be the same as before.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a given that balance is going to be a disaster for the first couple months. Hopefully the playtesting feedback was actually integrated and the worst stuff is caught, but there's just so many moving parts when you make changes this significant to the rules while retaining all the prior model rules. It's inevitable that something is going to be badly broken.
That's not really comforting.
Welcome to every edition change ever, only GW is actively trying to fix the cracks.
Why the massive nerf to heavy bolters? And why did tacs go up so much more compared to intercessors as a %? This doesn't bode well for csm. Don't like the increase on contemptors either, that'll carry on to csm as well. Terminators came out pretty much unscathed, as long as cc weapons don't get hit.
Guess your theory about intercessors paying for their weapons is out the door Zion, now they're all free. Danged executioner didn't get hurt much though . At least TFCs got a massive hit, about time.
Oh well, now we just have to wait and see what happens to everyone else.
Hive Fleet Hercual - 6760pts
. At least