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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kodos wrote:
it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.

in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?

Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.

Kind of funny that those "crusading knights in space" will be one of the factions least affected by the new coherencey rules. Loyalists can just go All MSU All the Time. So another new rule that barely touches them.

Unless there is something in the rules we haven't seen, no there isn't any advantage beside having a spare model for casualties (and the gun/attack that comes with the 6 model). But it is still stupid that the core rules punish base to base models on anything on a 60 mm base or bigger that are touching each other but don't count as in coherency.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kodos wrote:
it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.

in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?

Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.

Kind of funny that those "crusading knights in space" will be one of the factions least affected by the new coherencey rules. Loyalists can just go All MEQ All the Time. So another new rule that barely touches them.

I was talking thematics elements which GW has traditionally leaned on for the source of the rules and how the game "should" play and look.

And MSU Marines aren't effected, but anyone who takes full sized units or hordes (Crusader squads or large groups of CSM which are more viable thanks to morale changes) are effected.

And let's be honest: even Guard, who are the closest to "modern military" in the setting are still far out of date in their tactics with such things such a ranked firing.

It wouldn't be modern 40k without a bunch of rule that everybody else is affected by but that space marines just get to ignore.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It wouldn't be modern 40k without a bunch of rule that everybody else is affected by but that space marines just get to ignore.

True, but in past editions the Marines still sucked despite ignoring all the rules.

It's come up before but it's hard to write rules that benefit large units that don't benefit MSU units more.

We still need to see the FAQs, but I honestly hope GW has done -something- to the horde factions to make them feel better as a hordes (say, Nids getting +1 to their save for every 10 models (to represent their endless hordes), or Orks getting +1 attack for every 10 models, ect, ect)

 Trickstick wrote:

mightymconeshot wrote:
Actually any unit on 60mm bases such as harlequin bikes can no longer be in base to base in a single line. You now have to have a staggered unit of some sort to not lose models at the end of the first turn. So it is a change in that regards.

Skyweaver jetbikes have a unit limit of 6, so as soon as they lose a model they no longer have to abide by the 2 model coherency rule.

Skyweavers have a unit size of 5, not 6.

Yes, go look in the codex.

You think you are seeing 6, but you're not......, you're seeing 5. Your 8th edition eyes are deceiving you, you need the new 9th edition glasses (GW will be selling them shortly)

But really, you're seeing 5.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kodos wrote:
it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.

in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?

Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.

Kind of funny that those "crusading knights in space" will be one of the factions least affected by the new coherencey rules. Loyalists can just go All MSU All the Time. So another new rule that barely touches them.

Yeah, totally untouched. They never ever wanted to field 10 men intercessor units. Not at all. They weren't one of the scariest thing in the SM arsenal and one of the boogeymans of this board.

The infamous "40 S4 AP-2 shots at range 30"" were indeed never mentioned as an issue in any thread ever. Halving the potential of that combination clearly doesn't impact SM in the least.

And Transhuman Physiology? Who ever thought of using that? Surely it's not a problem if now you are spending 2 CP to protect a 5 man unit.

I mean, here we are, talking like SM have any good stratagems/chants/powers that they may want applied to something bigger than a minimum unit. Or like they have any auras that they would like to conga line to.

No no, SM are totally unaffected by this.

You oppoent has blast? That 10 man squad can combat squad into 2 5 man squads.

They don't have blast? Rock those 10 strong bods.


Ok yes, I know the original discussion was about coherency, but it still shouldn't be too hard on 10 strong Intercessors. "Barely touches them" sounds pretty apt in the scheme of things.

In the scheme of things, a unit of 30 on 25mm bases loses out more than a unit of 10 on 32mm bases in terms of chaining distance lost due to the new coherency rules.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You oppoent has blast? That 10 man squad can combat squad into 2 5 man squads.

They don't have blast? Rock those 10 strong bods.


Ok yes, I know the original discussion was about coherency, but it still shouldn't be too hard on 10 strong Intercessors. "Barely touches them" sounds pretty apt in the scheme of things.

In the scheme of things, a unit of 30 on 25mm bases loses out more than a unit of 10 on 32mm bases in terms of chaining distance lost due to the new coherency rules.

Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.

Dudeface wrote:
Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.

I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.

I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.

It's still only a minimum 3 shots, when the average was 3.5 anywhere it shuffles it up to about 4, it's not that much worse for the marines and you'd plan for taking the same number of hits, it just smooths the curve out.

BrotherGecko wrote:
Yeppers, the infantry rifle doesn't do much more than corral enemies into the machine gun or hold enemy for indirect fire. That would make for a pretty dull board game probably.

a lot of games that are based on modern combat and not just Fantasy in Space use such mechanics and they are al but dull
but things like moral or training level actually being a tactical component of the game is too much to ask from GW anyway and people expecting such mechanics (like pinning or supression) to be dull also explains why GW not even tries

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I was talking thematics elements which GW has traditionally leaned on for the source of the rules and how the game "should" play and look.
And MSU Marines aren't effected, but anyone who takes full sized units or hordes (Crusader squads or large groups of CSM which are more viable thanks to morale changes) are effected.
And let's be honest: even Guard, who are the closest to "modern military" in the setting are still far out of date in their tactics with such things such a ranked firing.

The rules have nothing to do with any formations used in real live, not matter if you talk about Crusading Knights or WW1 combat
and no, Marines although being Knight themed, are the ones coming close to the possibilities of modern military, they just don't use these options for the game
Guard is more like pre-WW1 with tanks

GW wants a specific look for the game and the units played from an aesthetic point of view as public games that look good are the best advertising while those look bad are turning people off
this has nothing to do with anything from real live

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.

I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.

for sure, it's just that the bump from 5-10 is only about 15% while the bump from 10-11 is about 40%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooty squads whose primary job isn't "be a screen" will not care about new coherency at all. They probably packed pretty tight to keep in aura ranges anyway. Melee squads will be the other units affected, who will struggle to achieve multicharges even harder and won't be able to get everyone in combat.

Plus, for good measure, I'm betting that the point cost for Cultists and Servitors is not an outlier but a trend, and GW will have decided that every sub-10ppm unit needed a 40-50% point hike while every 15-20ppm unit needed a 10-20% hike unless they mount a blast weapon.

You know, because we can't JUST make a ruleset that massively favors elites. We also need to pair it with hugely disproportionate point nerfs to hordes.

and you'd also need plenty of targetable civilians which might be worth victory points if you save them or kill them, but you'd only find out after the battle once public opinion had had a chance to

roll 2D6 for each group

2 evidence shows they were really terrorists/enemy combatants +2VP
3-6 the public believes they were terrorists/enemy combatants +1VP
7-11 the public believes they were innocent civilians you should have protected -1VP
12 the slaughter of the civilians demands a public sacrifice and your warlord is demoted, -2VP

With the way the game leans heavily into objectives that are spread around the table, I question how many units we'd really need to be multi-charging since it feels like the armies are going to be operating more in pockets across the table rather than large blocks or castles.

As for points hikes, I've mulled over it and currently 12 units of 30 Cultists is 1,440 points. That gets you 360 bodies in a double battalion list with 560 points left for characters. In an edition that prioritizes objectives and not killing that becomes a damn hard list for most armies to deal with, even with buffs to blast allow for more shots against them.

I think the hordes just needed the points hike to offset just how much they can bend the new mission structure.

I still feel armies like Marines needed a larger one (I was hoping to see 25ppm Intercessors for example) but hordes definitely needed to have some models taken off the table for game balance.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
With the way the game leans heavily into objectives that are spread around the table, I question how many units we'd really need to be multi-charging since it feels like the armies are going to be operating more in pockets across the table rather than large blocks or castles.

As for points hikes, I've mulled over it and currently 12 units of 30 Cultists is 1,440 points. That gets you 360 bodies in a double battalion list with 560 points left for characters. In an edition that prioritizes objectives and not killing that becomes a damn hard list for most armies to deal with, even with buffs to blast allow for more shots against them.

I think the hordes just needed the points hike to offset just how much they can bend the new mission structure.

I still feel armies like Marines needed a larger one (I was hoping to see 25ppm Intercessors for example) but hordes definitely needed to have some models taken off the table for game balance.

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE for the point differential between a lighter unit and a heavier unit to go down.

But to have that not just be "Why would you ever take the lighter unit, then?" you need to have a system that allows them to be...you know...good at something.

Like, take Rubrics and Tzaangors. At the release of the two of them, Tzaangors, clearly the better option. Codex goatmans. That basically went away with the turn 1 deep strike changes, and now, optimal thousand sons list if you take a pure thousand sons list is 5-man rubric squads spamming smite and one big rubric squad to use strats and powers on.

That's what's currently by far the most durable, by far the strongest offense (and they can do it from 24" away instead of melee range) by far the most efficient in terms of CPs (for 2CP you can give Tzaangors fight twice, or you can give Rubrics shoot twice and a 2+/4++ save)

That's where we're currently at with 17ppm rubrics and I believe 7ppm tzaangors? If Rubrics stay at the same value as Intercessors (since you gotta pay that Spike Tax!) and Tzaangors go up the same amount as Cultists (it'd be fairly silly if they didn't since they're WAY better than cultists and in the same book filling the same role) you'll have 20ppm rubrics and 11ppm Tzaangors.

9 points for a 3+ armor save, a psyker sergeant, a S4 AP-2 boltgun, the All is Dust rule, move and fire heavy weapons, and access to a 1cp +1sv/+1invuln sv and a 1cp shoot twice stratagem?

Why would you ever not? Even if you got two tzaangors for the price of 1 rubric, rubrics will basically ALWAYS be more durable for the points, AND you dont' need to invest in separate models to give them the psychic buff that they both want - their sergeant can cast that buff on them himself.

This is the issue. I do not see the rules for the new missions having wider spread objectives than the CA missions, mostly, they seem almost exactly the same. And an elite unit like rubrics is MORE likely to be able to hold that objective for a full turn than a cheapo unit like tzaangors, not less.I want a world where I can have 10ppm tzaangors, but this rule system is not one where we can have that and not just have tzaangors be unusable. They'd have to be where they are right now, or even cheaper, and that's what I'm worried we're going to have throughout 9th unless Gw is willing to balance the other way and nerf a bunch of elite stuff - which I doubt they'll have the balls to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the old missions were ENTIRELY about objectives and had NO killing. We went from 100% board control to now, where you have killing secondaries available.

And a smaller board, meaning objectives if anything will be less spread out.

ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.

And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.

And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.

And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.

And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.

Yes, but in the case of csm they haven't done that by making csm better. They've done it by making cultists worse. The basic csm isn't any better, they're just looking to be better from a points efficiency standpoint compared to cultists. Making units more desirable by making other options worse isn't a good way to go when both are already lackluster compared to their competitors in other factions.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.

And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.
.

A set of tournament houserules is irrelevant when talking about the changes from Games Workshop. GW very self-evidently did not balance around ITC, it's why ITC was demonstrably less faction and unit diverse in their events than events that cleaved more closely to the GW official mission packs, and units like tau drones, basilisks and TFCs had ridiculously outsized impact in ITC events where you could do stuff that I'm sure GW definitely balanced them around like making them COMPLETELY INVULNERABLE TO RANGED ATTACK.

We are moving away from a mission set where 100% of the points were held through objectives, and in most missions objectives could be placed anywhere over 6" away from board edges - several of the most recent CA eternal war mission sets you could place objectives where there is no longer any more board in the current min board size.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.

We had that problem until we no longer did, because GW made marines the better option in all codexes where marines appear, BEFORE handing out the marine buffs to 9th edition and the corresponding points buffs with the 9th edition CA. Ever since marines 2.0 - optimal marine troop, intercessors by a country mile. Optimal CSM troop, Red Corsairs CSM. Optimal Tsons troop, MSU rubrics.

We were already at the point where people were taking marines over the alternatives. And now we're getting a half dozen odd nerfs to those cheap chaff units and a hefty round of points nerfing.

All that's going to happen to the meta with 9th is that you'll see a bunch more vehicles without Fly in lists, and factions like GSC, Nids and Orks currently sitting at the bottom of the bowl will just be flushed down into nonexistence, until the inevitable point drops that put them right back where they were in 8th, with horde army players being forced to spend 4x-6x as much $ to field a full army as someone who can buy a couple starter boxes and have themselves a darn near tournament competitive list.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.

And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.

And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.

Yes, but in the case of csm they haven't done that by making csm better. They've done it by making cultists worse. The basic csm isn't any better, they're just looking to be better from a points efficiency standpoint compared to cultists. Making units more desirable by making other options worse isn't a good way to go when both are already lackluster compared to their competitors in other factions.

assuming they keep the same piddly 1ppm discount over loyalists, you're looking at 6ppm cultists and 14ppm CSMs.

Does anyone really think a 10-man CSM squad is easier to remove than a 20-man cultist squad?

Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.

I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*

Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.

If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.

I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*

Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.

If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.

CP for the cost was the big argument in 8th.

Actions for the cost would be more the argument for 9th since cheap units who take up board space fill that role in an army well.

We'll see once we start getting games in how the army shapes up of course, but my point was more about why GW might have needed to do a points rejiggering to hordes, even when it doesn't seem immediately obvious.

Heck, it only takes 3 rounds to max our your primary. In a 5 round game, how many armies can kill 360 of anything fast enough to ensure they don't max their primary, and possibly some of their secondaries? Being tabled doesn't matter in 9th after all, points do.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.

And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.

And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.

Yes, but in the case of csm they haven't done that by making csm better. They've done it by making cultists worse. The basic csm isn't any better, they're just looking to be better from a points efficiency standpoint compared to cultists. Making units more desirable by making other options worse isn't a good way to go when both are already lackluster compared to their competitors in other factions.

assuming they keep the same piddly 1ppm discount over loyalists, you're looking at 6ppm cultists and 14ppm CSMs.

Does anyone really think a 10-man CSM squad is easier to remove than a 20-man cultist squad?

No, csm are better than cultists, it was only points efficiency that made cultists a better option than csm in their codex. But csm are still no better compared to their counterparts in other codexes. They are still just the inferior, cheaper option compared to loyalists. I consider that a problem.

And your units are earning points while being blown off the board... How?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.

I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.

for sure, it's just that the bump from 5-10 is only about 15% while the bump from 10-11 is about 40%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shooty squads whose primary job isn't "be a screen" will not care about new coherency at all. They probably packed pretty tight to keep in aura ranges anyway. Melee squads will be the other units affected, who will struggle to achieve multicharges even harder and won't be able to get everyone in combat.

Plus, for good measure, I'm betting that the point cost for Cultists and Servitors is not an outlier but a trend, and GW will have decided that every sub-10ppm unit needed a 40-50% point hike while every 15-20ppm unit needed a 10-20% hike unless they mount a blast weapon.

You know, because we can't JUST make a ruleset that massively favors elites. We also need to pair it with hugely disproportionate point nerfs to hordes.

You are making a big assumption on very few data points here. Wait for it to actually start raining before declaring the sky is falling.

Voss wrote:
And your units are earning points while being blown off the board... How?

Most actions for secondaries earn points in your turn. And again, how many armies can kill 360+ of anything in 3-4 turns?

The primary objectives are all about board control and the easiest secondary ones are also about board control. And the limit to 5 turns helps strong early scoring armies a lot.

I believe MSU horde in which you have a lot of 10 man light infantry units just everywhere for scoring purposes will be quite viable.

People spent all of 8th complaining about elite units not being worth it because cheap was better... now cheap is not better and we complaint?

Like. Didn't thousand sons players wanted to play rubrics instead of Tzaangors?


I understand. All units should have a place. But I believe people is overeacting. And even if they aren't, who cares? In tops 4-5 months things will change and the "meta" will shake again just like in 8th.

There was a time were it was worth the shoot to buy the most OP stuff because it would be OP 4-6 years. Now it is at most 8 months before it gets nerfed. Is much more productive to try and improve your skill as a player, and not care that much about the power spikes of certain units.

 Galas wrote:
People spent all of 8th complaining about elite units not being worth it because cheap was better... now cheap is not better and we complaint?

Like. Didn't thousand sons players wanted to play rubrics instead of Tzaangors?


I understand. All units should have a place. But I believe people is overeacting. And even if they aren't, who cares? In tops 4-5 months things will change and the "meta" will shake again just like in 8th.

There was a time were it was worth the shoot to buy the most OP stuff because it would be OP 4-6 years. Now it is at most 8 months before it gets nerfed. Is much more productive to try and improve your skill as a player, and not care that much about the power spikes of certain units.

I think it's more just the knee jerk reaction to the change, especially since GW hasn't done much to convey the "why" of the change. I've mulled it over and given my own thoughts, but I could just as easily be off the mark myself.

The "why" of the change is because people whined, and now that they got their wish they'll whine again.

It's an endless cycle of whining.