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.

In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.

Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.

 Trickstick wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
You now how many people actually care about this stormshield discussion? 1+

Damn, we have just under 3 weeks of this to go, what else can they possibly drip feed us now?

Isn't the app out on Saturday? Is that is going to be a massive info dump, as it has the points?

That is going to be the big thing of how do we get the point's as they said codex's in 9th would have some sort of unlock code for the App. I must admit I am half expecting the app to be up and down in availability for the first weeks hence them droppibg it ahead of time so all its doing on the 25th is verifying everyones CA2020 code to show the points.

It would be hilarious if the app has some sort of data collection, and GW use it to guage the list meta in different locations.

"Huh, Dallas is making a lot of lists with tanks. Quick, ship them more Guard starter boxes!"

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.

Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.

Why not? You don't check coherency until the end of your turn anyway.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.

Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.

Well, you can, because most people work out how many times they've been wounded, then roll saves, then remove the models. Yes, I know, you apply wounds to models before rolling saves, but the opposite is generally far faster. The former only really matters in the case of being wounded by various different types of weapons, but if my unit takes 6 identical Bolter wounds, I'm going to roll saves and then apply wounds.

 EnTyme wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.

Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.

Why not? You don't check coherency until the end of your turn anyway.

Once you’ve taken (even if passed and unwounded) a save on a model you have to allocate all remaining attacks against it for the rest of the phase (unless it dies). So which model is taking saves is important for positioning, wargear etc.

Also with coherency, if you know how many models you are taking off (which you strictly shouldn’t) you have more scope for fettling the coherency of models you have left than you would if you only allocated one at a time.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.

Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.

Well, you can, because most people work out how many times they've been wounded, then roll saves, then remove the models. Yes, I know, you apply wounds to models before rolling saves, but the opposite is generally far faster. The former only really matters in the case of being wounded by various different types of weapons, but if my unit takes 6 identical Bolter wounds, I'm going to roll saves and then apply wounds.

It wont make a difference a lot of the time but for some units it's going to be rediculous important. As will be the order of resolving your shooting.

If you have say vanguard vets and 2 models have a storm shield, I shoot at them with my tactical squad with a lascannon.

If I shoir the lascannon first you either auto loose a model or allocate the wound to one with the storm shield, if he passes his 3++, i no2 shoot my bolters any wounds must be allocated to the same model. I can then shoot intercessors or such until Stormshield dye 1 is dead. Yiu can then allocate as you choose, I can then use a unit with 2 lascannons to pull the same trick.

The other issue is if I shoot unit A with my unit 1 shooting and cause 3 wounds then shoot unit 2 at unit B and unit 3 and unit A again the possitioning and how you remove casualties will be super critical as you either end up with a blob or you screen is no longer in coherency and you'll loose more models later in the turn.

Yeah... outside of BCB I don't know anyone who's ever played the wound/save allocation rules like that.

I mean, that's an exercise in pure tedium. Forget that...

That sounds like the worst case of skirmish level detail applied to the bloated scale of 40k in years.

 Ordana wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

hypnoticeris wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.

As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.

I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "

It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.

To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.

A battlecannon averages 1.05 more wounds to Orks standing out in the open.

Even the Wyvern isn't killing as much as it's 24 shots would suggest. Against unbuffed Orks it kills an average of 7.5 Orks. Shooting twice brings that up to 15 but now morale doesn't hurt the unit as much while before you were likely to use the unit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah... outside of BCB I don't know anyone who's ever played the wound/save allocation rules like that.

I mean, that's an exercise in pure tedium. Forget that...

It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.
Unfortunately the Marine units it works against out side of DW and their insane you get to break the core rule of only 1 toughness value (and generaly save) in the same squad are not tge new undercosted stuff, however against DW I would suggets all those xeno players get ready for having to abuse the bejesus out of this to stand a chance.

Ice_can wrote:
It wont make a difference a lot of the time but for some units it's going to be rediculous important.

With 2d6 save it will take more time to roll saves all the time, not just some times.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
It wont make a difference a lot of the time but for some units it's going to be rediculous important.

With 2d6 save it will take more time to roll saves all the time, not just some times.

Your talking about something unrelated to my post, this is just how wound and save allocation now works in 9th.

Ice_can wrote:
It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.

You're right.

8th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.
9th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.

You're right.

8th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.
9th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?

Probably to speed things up with mixed gear units like Custodes or Deathwatch who can take Storm Shields.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.

You're right.

8th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.
9th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?

Have you tried to batter your way through the BS that is Deathwatch veterans and other units that can stack 2+ saves and 3++ storm shields seperatly on specific models, Bullgryn are another favourite for this.

It's borderline gamebreaking to watch them always use the most efficent save for every dang attack.

n/m

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?

It's probably to prevent things like mixed squads being able to tank wounds on the best type of save. Like a mixed shield type Bullgryn squad, where you can take a 2+ or 4++, depending on the AP of the attack.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That doesn't speed things up.

Does when it doesn't take 3 turns or half your army shooting 1 unit to kill them.

I actually used a crisis suit with a iridum armor and other with a shield generator to apply shots in one or the other when I ran out of drones so I was used to assing rolls to each based in the stats.


The same for custodes squads with a storm shield. But whatever, with the new rules I will just stop doing that and have all the models with the same saves. I'm not gonna be rolling 50 saves one at a time. Just because it will make the game impossible to play, I don't care thats what the rule says when the difference in result is extremely minimal and marginal.

 Galas wrote:
I actually used a crisis suit with a iridum armor and other with a shield generator to apply shots in one or the other when I ran out of drones so I was used to assing rolls to each based in the stats.


The same for custodes squads with a storm shield. But whatever, with the new rules I will just stop doing that and have all the models with the same saves. I'm not gonna be rolling 50 saves one at a time. Just because it will make the game impossible to play, I don't care thats what the rule says when the difference in result is extremely minimal and marginal.

Yeah it’s going to make it a bit of a pain in the backside to do by the letter of the rules. Rolling to wound with Incubi in late 8th was bad enough! With opponent’s agreement I might start doing saves is batches - e.g. if I have 6 identical models rolling 6 first, removing casualties, then allocating another batch. Not technically allowed but much less painful and, as you say, minimal advantage. Will have to see how the other local players want to run it though.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Yeah it’s going to make it a bit of a pain in the backside to do by the letter of the rules.

At least it is still better than 5th edition's wound pools. So bad on complex units...

I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?

 Trickstick wrote:
At least it is still better than 5th edition's wound pools. So bad on complex units...

That's true. The whole Nob Biker/Grey Knight Paladin shenanigans from back then was far worse.

 EnTyme wrote:
I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?

Officially you need to pick a specific model (say one of the 2+/3++ models), roll saves one at a time until it dies, then pick another model and rinse/repeat for the rest of the phase. You can’t batch roll at all as theoretically they could be on different sides of the squad and it could matter for some contexts (coherency, LOS for other units, etc; or whether the model died from the first attack or the last which would affect whether you can change model for the next attack).

Now in practice I think a lot of people will mostly play it as you wrote above, but that’s not how it’s actually written and as I note above it does really matter in some contexts. Say if you had 4x 1-wound models with half 2+/5++ and half 3+/4++. If you took two bolter hits you might want to take it on the 2+. Let’s say you fail one and pass one so one 2+ dies. Later in the phase another unit shoots you and you take a melta hit (which you’d want to take the 4++ on. Now the order you took the original bolter saves matters. if you passed one then failed one you can choose a new target and take the 4++. If you failed the first bolter save then passed the 2nd however one of the 2+ guys is still designated target so you have to take the melta against their 5++ rather against another model’s 4++.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
yeah, i did not like the emphasis on smaller tables...optional right?.......Right?

Yeah. Totally optional.

jivardi wrote:
It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended...

But again, and I can't believe how often this has been said in this thread alone, this situation isn't new and GW have ruled ---both--- ways in the past. They have sometimes said it is working as intended, other times they have FAQ'd it. So saying "It's not intended" isn't true.

 jeff white wrote:
Rerollable rerolls, everything with an invulnerable save, psykic shenanigans, trying to remember this snowflake unit’s special rule as opposed to that unit ... Seriously? Rolling two dice?

Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.

Anyone who has ever played battletech knows how to roll a bunch of 2d6's at once, pairs of different colored dice.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?

Officially you need to pick a specific model (say one of the 2+/3++ models), roll saves one at a time until it dies, then pick another model and rinse/repeat for the rest of the phase. You can’t batch roll at all as theoretically they could be on different sides of the squad and it could matter for some contexts (coherency, LOS for other units, etc; or whether the model died from the first attack or the last which would affect whether you can change model for the next attack).

Now in practice I think a lot of people will mostly play it as you wrote above, but that’s not how it’s actually written and as I note above it does really matter in some contexts. Say if you had 4x 1-wound models with half 2+/5++ and half 3+/4++. If you took two bolter hits you might want to take it on the 2+. Let’s say you fail one and pass one so one 2+ dies. Later in the phase another unit shoots you and you take a melta hit (which you’d want to take the 4++ on. Now the order you took the original bolter saves matters. if you passed one then failed one you can choose a new target and take the 4++. If you failed the first bolter save then passed the 2nd however one of the 2+ guys is still designated target so you have to take the melta against their 5++ rather against another model’s 4++.

I don't even know why they changed this. I mean. It was really a problem , tanking lasscannons with your stormshield and bolters with your normal dudes?

 Galas wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?

Officially you need to pick a specific model (say one of the 2+/3++ models), roll saves one at a time until it dies, then pick another model and rinse/repeat for the rest of the phase. You can’t batch roll at all as theoretically they could be on different sides of the squad and it could matter for some contexts (coherency, LOS for other units, etc; or whether the model died from the first attack or the last which would affect whether you can change model for the next attack).

Now in practice I think a lot of people will mostly play it as you wrote above, but that’s not how it’s actually written and as I note above it does really matter in some contexts. Say if you had 4x 1-wound models with half 2+/5++ and half 3+/4++. If you took two bolter hits you might want to take it on the 2+. Let’s say you fail one and pass one so one 2+ dies. Later in the phase another unit shoots you and you take a melta hit (which you’d want to take the 4++ on. Now the order you took the original bolter saves matters. if you passed one then failed one you can choose a new target and take the 4++. If you failed the first bolter save then passed the 2nd however one of the 2+ guys is still designated target so you have to take the melta against their 5++ rather against another model’s 4++.

I don't even know why they changed this. I mean. It was really a problem , tanking lasscannons with your stormshield and bolters with your normal dudes?

They likely got feedback on it being something that slowed the game, so they changed it.

Going slightly on a tangent from a lot of the talk.

Watching a MWG unboxing of the Indomitus box, when Dave opens the rulebook to the first page talking about the Chaos Gods... I found those 'card art' depictions of the Chaos gods to be fascinating and I think I would pay to have just those.

A lot of the art in the book is pretty awesome, and some of it looks new to me. That's pretty standard for a BrB though...

 warmaster21 wrote:
Anyone who has ever played battletech knows how to roll a bunch of 2d6's at once, pairs of different colored dice.

I've been playing BTech for over 20 years. I've never once rolled more than one test at a time.

BTech is a small game with, on average, 4-5 units a side. 40K is much bigger.