40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

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.

**puma713**

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

This question baffles me. Just because I may spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on one product does not preclude me from being frugal about other parts of the hobby, or other products altogether.

**Voss**

Aaranis wrote:
Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.

That was a given anyway- datasheets don't reference each other.

But it doesn't deal with strats, relics, abilities and so on that can improve saves. So if they really don't want 1+ saves rolling around, they have to deal with that as well.
Though its _really_ easy if they don't- last sentence of step 4. Saving Throw changes to: Any roll of 1 fails, modified or unmodified.

**Oaka**

If they release race-specific objective sets with 1/6 objectives being in high demand for army conversions, they are very clever.

**tneva82**

Aaranis wrote:
Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.

It's not FAQ yet but at least they're aware of the problem and giving a hint as how to solve this in the meantime.

Even if most sensible people see no problems with this rule in the first place

Which doesn't actually solve anything since you can get 1+ with box models...

If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

**Trickstick**

tneva82 wrote:
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

**ERJAK**

puma713 wrote:
Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Does anyone who is spending a good $500-$1k on their army really care about a couple bucks for an app?

This question baffles me. Just because I may spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on one product does not preclude me from being frugal about other parts of the hobby, or other products altogether.

If the app doesn't provide me value equivalent to, or greater than, it's cost, I won't buy it. That's how commerce works.

**jullevi**

New objectives look nice but the bases look 50mm instead of 40mm. I would be happy to be wrong.

**ERJAK**

Trickstick wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.

**lord_blackfang**

Wouldn't it just be classic GW tho to define an official objective marker size and in the same breath release official objectives of a different size.

**Voss**

ERJAK wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.

That's a reading failure on the part of whoever said that, because the Blast rule isn't even vaguely ambiguous.

If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it
always makes a minimum of 3 attacks. So if, when determining how
many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in
less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead

There's no way to get Heavy 3d6=minimum 9 out of that, no matter how you torture the language.

**stato**

Is the plasma pipe in the image a new piece? (image of the new battlefield / battlezone box) Dont recall seeing it before.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/y5RkR3O9bgH9Db1P.jpg

**EnTyme**

I'm with Voss on this one. The playtesters just misunderstood the rule. I thought the same thing when I first read the Blast rule, but after rereading it, I figured out what was meant. I also agree that we should table the 1+ save discussion for now. It's pointless to argue about a theoretical rules interaction that may or may not even be possible in a matchplay setting.

**ERJAK**

Voss wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.

That's a reading failure on the part of whoever said that, because the Blast rule isn't even vaguely ambiguous.

If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it
always makes a minimum of 3 attacks. So if, when determining how
many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in
less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead

There's no way to get Heavy 3d6=minimum 9 out of that, no matter how you torture the language.

It is if their original playtesting packet was ' blast just gives like, extra shots and junk' instead of the actual official rule they printed.

Also, not for nothing but that seems really stupid. Yeah, 10 models is 3 shots for a Conflagration missile but 11 is 18.

**Oguhmek**

Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...

No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.

**Goobi2**

ERJAK wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.

Odd that the Tabletop Tactics group have been calling minimum 3 shots, then. Which playtesters were saying otherwise?

**endlesswaltz123**

Goobi2 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.

Odd that the Tabletop Tactics group have been calling minimum 3 shots, then. Which playtesters were saying otherwise?

I think the tabletop tactics interpretation in terms of intent is correct, the way it is written is just poor.

You are also not privy to conversations play testers have had with the rules writers when giving feedback and asking questions. The question may very well have been asked.

It will surely be FAQ'd.

**the_scotsman**

I mean, they may have also gotten a differently worded version of the rule, provided playtest feedback that appeared to show something different to what the rule was intended to do by the designers, and the designers reworded it to remove that interpretation.

You know.

Playtesting?

And then the playtesters made a mistake in their review, not realizing that the wording had changed.

**Kanluwen**

Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!

In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.

Did we know that before?
Deathwatch Article up.

**Ice_can**

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, they may have also gotten a differently worded version of the rule, provided playtest feedback that appeared to show something different to what the rule was intended to do by the designers, and the designers reworded it to remove that interpretation.

You know.

Playtesting?

And then the playtesters made a mistake in their review, not realizing that the wording had changed.

I'm not sure if it is true or not but I have aldo heard that at one point either in ith or 9th edition playtesting GW was giving out different rulesets to different groups to test out different ideas. It may well have been they were testing it differently that what has turned up in the new rulebook.

**Ghaz**

Kanluwen wrote:
Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!

In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.

Did we know that before?
Deathwatch Article up.

Important part for the Deathwatch players:

Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.

**Kanluwen**

Yes, that's in the bit I quoted.

**endlesswaltz123**

If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks� So if, when determining how many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead� For example, if a Grenade D6 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more models, and you roll a 2 to determine how many attacks are made, that roll is counted as being a 3 and that weapon makes three attacks against that unit�

I think it is 3x per roll. That is the direct quote from the rules on the site.

Doesn't each roll count as a separate attack also, meaning a 3D6 blast weapon makes 3x separate attacks, 1x for each roll?

The wording is poor, but it is absolutely not clear cut on how to interpret it as some people are suggesting. It can be argued both ways.

**Ghaz**

Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, that's in the bit I quoted.

It was worth repeating...

**Tyel**

Good news for Deathwatch. Might be interesting to see if you can rope these units into Intercessors.

On Blast - its weird. Because RAW, its clear a 3D6 shot weapon just benefits from a minimum of 3 shots versus a 6-10 model squad.

But on Twitch I think Stu Black definitely gave the impressive this would be a minimum of 9 hits. So, as said, I think you will see a fairly quick FAQ covering this, one way or the other.

**H.B.M.C.**

jullevi wrote:
New objectives look nice but the bases look 50mm instead of 40mm. I would be happy to be wrong.

They literally just made objectives 40mm in size. Why would they then go and release a set of new objectives on 50mm bases?

Trickstick wrote:
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

Except it's come up other times before, and GW has ruled both ways. This situation isn't new, to us or GW.

stato wrote:
Is the plasma pipe in the image a new piece? (image of the new battlefield / battlezone box) Dont recall seeing it before.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/y5RkR3O9bgH9Db1P.jpg

Good spot. That is new.

**Apple Peel**

But still no word on Vanguard Primaris.

**tneva82**

Trickstick wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play

I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.

Seeing they have known this for about 1.5 years and spare they can hardly claim surprise...

They knew of this the moment they wrote that ss rule. That or they are idiots.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oguhmek wrote:
Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...

No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.

So it's fine primaris marines get 2++? After all you get that with box set models

**H.B.M.C.**

tneva82 wrote:
So it's fine primaris marines get 2++? After all you get that with box set models

Only with a Crusade list, not with their base rules.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Well if that's the case then the new Primaris Bikers outclass the regular Bikers for Deathwatch by a pretty damn extreme margin.

**IanVanCheese**

This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.

Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?