puma713 wrote:
Without having to search through this thread, did someone say the new app costs $$$?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Does anyone who is spending a good $500-$1k on their army really care about a couple bucks for an app?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW have done list building software a few times in the past. It never ends well for the players.

 Galas wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:
So you need the new rulebook, which has no points for anything, and then buy another book that has all the new points for everything.

It warms my heart to know GW hasn't lost their touch with business world and how to maximize profit.

Or you just buy the Rulebook, skip the $40 Chapter Approved, and pay your nominal monthly fee for the list builder to get the points.

Or just use PL and play Crusade and not have to pay for either the app or CA.

Or battlescribe like every one?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW have done list building software a few times in the past. It never ends well for the players.

 MPJ wrote:
I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane

Two observations however:

Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn

They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off

They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

 MPJ wrote:
I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane

Two observations however:

Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn

They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off

They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

 Argive wrote:

 MPJ wrote:
I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane

Two observations however:

Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn

They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off

They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

Goddamn spoilers...

 AduroT wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Bossdoc wrote:

So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).

It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...

One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AduroT wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?

It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.

So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.

+1 save issue?

A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.

Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...

also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...

The captain has a Relic Shield, the other guys have Storm Shields.

Alright, breaking down the math again. I have a 1+ armor save. Your gun has a -6 AP. I roll a 2. That 2 becomes a -4. -4 counts as 1. I made my 1+ save roll. You could have AP minus a billion, and I will make my save roll on anything other than a Natural 1.

 Argive wrote:

 MPJ wrote:
I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane

Two observations however:

Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn

They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off

They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

Goddamn spoilers...

IanVanCheese wrote:

 MPJ wrote:
I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane

Two observations however:

Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn

They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off

They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

Chef seems very excited, which makes me think he's been testing the new necron book.

Definitely. I hope this go round all books are far closer to power and there are less pointless units and rules in them

With that said, (game spoilers)

Spoiler:

yeah some huge tactical errors combined with shocking dice rolls kinda ruined this game.

 Togusa wrote:

You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...

 MPJ wrote:
Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide.

 MPJ wrote:
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MPJ wrote:
Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide.

Fewer places for large units (ie. 6+ according to GW) to hide.

In the first bat rep I watched even smaller units couldn’t hide that well due the opposing player moving units. I think boards will need to be spammed with anything that’s obscuring and/or dense

 MPJ wrote:
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

What does that even mean? A lot coming in the future? A lot of what? We have the rules. If they just mean Codices, then why not say so? What else could be coming for 40K besides new Codices that would significantly change anything with the rules?

 MPJ wrote:
In the first bat rep I watched even smaller units couldn’t hide that well due the opposing player moving units. I think boards will need to be spammed with anything that’s obscuring and/or dense

 MPJ wrote:
I’m guessing positive changes to rules and units, plus plenty of new stuff, perhaps even new armies. It’s a tease that could lead to nothing. I remember the statements made by the guys at FLG before 8th’s release and the bat reps they played and goddamn they were wrong! Guess we’ll just have to see really

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...

It specifies "Improve the bearer's Save characteristic", not armor save. If you're going to claim people are reading it wrong, you may want to read it correctly yourself. So yes, if you start with a 2+ save, you are now at 1+.

 Togusa wrote:
I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.

 Togusa wrote:
I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.

 Togusa wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...

It specifies "Improve the bearer's Save characteristic", not armor save. If you're going to claim people are reading it wrong, you may want to read it correctly yourself. So yes, if you start with a 2+ save, you are now at 1+.

I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MPJ wrote:
In the first bat rep I watched even smaller units couldn’t hide that well due the opposing player moving units. I think boards will need to be spammed with anything that’s obscuring and/or dense

It'll probably takes us a while to work out GW's amazingly counter intuative new cover rules and what they actually mean. Once we've got that down, then they can change them all via FAQ and start the cycle anew.

Yeah haha. That sounds about right. Whilst I think the terrain traits are a good addition, it remains to be seen how good. Still not convinced they help melee armies that much either

 MPJ wrote:
I’m guessing positive changes to rules and units, plus plenty of new stuff, perhaps even new armies. It’s a tease that could lead to nothing. I remember the statements made by the guys at FLG before 8th’s release and the bat reps they played and goddamn they were wrong! Guess we’ll just have to see really

Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat a moment a go. It was more a general "what did this mean" rather than a "what do YOU mean by this".

New armies and whatnot is a given, IMO. It's just such an odd comment for them to make about "more to come". Outside of rule changes, which would be an odd thing to talk about just as a new book's about to come out, I can't imagine what the "new" stuff could be.

 Togusa wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...

It specifies "Improve the bearer's Save characteristic", not armor save. If you're going to claim people are reading it wrong, you may want to read it correctly yourself. So yes, if you start with a 2+ save, you are now at 1+.

I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.

 MPJ wrote:

Spoiler:

I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane

Two observations however:

Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn

They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off

They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What else could be coming for 40K besides new Codices that would significantly change anything with the rules?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."

I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.

Voss wrote:
No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.

It's the same thing. You roll anything but a 1, you save.

 Zakiriel wrote:
When does this come up on pre-order?