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.

tulun wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like the rules changes for vehicles (being a natural treadhead and always thinking the idea of CC locking tank shooting was silly thematically), I'm curious what they're going to be doing to offset the impact for infantry and assaults, because there's a lot of units which, if other things remain unchanged from 8th, are going to basically going to have no point on a table in 9th.

I'm terrified for my light infantry as an Ork.

Unless cover rules are kind, or they largely escape points increases, it seems like I'll need to move to a largely Mega Nob / mechanized force. Which is fine, because that style of Ork playing is fun, but boys are not looking so good beyond the usual tellyporta -> deep strike.. and even then, they can't really tag vehicles anymore.

If we can see the problem GW probably could as well, and they've had quite a bit more time to think on it. My bet is that your right on, something with the cover rules gives infantry a leg up, specifically light infantry, otherwise there would be no reason for the massive increase cultist got compared to the increase that intercessors got. Here is my thinking, whatever changed this edition benefits cultist alot more than it benefits Intercessors, cultist went up in cost by 50% where as intercessors went up by 20-ish percent. We haven't seen any justification for that disparity in the rules we've seen so far. In the current edition light infantry doesn't benefit as much as heavy infantry from cover, a +1 to save takes a 3+ to a 2+, which halves the chance of failing a save, where as going from a 6+ to a 5+ is only a 20% reduction in the chance of failing a save.

So enough beating around the bush, I think they are going to change it so that cover just gives a flat armor save, depending on the cover quality. If ruins gave you a 4+ armor save light infantry like cultist and orks could see a huge jump in durability, like 40% against anti-infantry fire. Marines wouldn't benefit from cover, except as concealment to break LoS. That would handily explain the relative disparity in points increase.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like the rules changes for vehicles (being a natural treadhead and always thinking the idea of CC locking tank shooting was silly thematically), I'm curious what they're going to be doing to offset the impact for infantry and assaults, because there's a lot of units which, if other things remain unchanged from 8th, are going to basically going to have no point on a table in 9th.

Maybe power fists return to being the tank crackers of yore?

Or maybe krak grenades and melta bombs will be useable against vehicles in cc again.

If so, csm wants our melta bombs back!

Edit:
What Insectum said. Make chainfists awesome again. They look so nice with the proper application of Blood For the Blood God.

Oh snap! Make it so EVERY model in CC with a vehicle can plant a grenade on it again. Please, please, please.

We'll get to see cover rules tomorrow, so hopefully that'll clear some things up then.

In principle I think these are sensible rules and should, in the round, make pointing vehicles and monsters easier.

On the other hand, yeah, think light infantry are looking weaker and weaker by the day. Maybe they can live if they bring back old-money cover and you can get a 5++ by just vaguely looking at terrain but even then I'm not convinced.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
We'll get to see cover rules tomorrow, so hopefully that'll clear some things up then.

I predict we will have even more questions.

It's fun to speculate on each piece, but at the end of the day we have to leave it at the door until we get the full rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
We'll get to see cover rules tomorrow, so hopefully that'll clear some things up then.

I predict we will have even more questions.

It's fun to speculate on each piece, but at the end of the day we have to leave it at the door until we get the full rules.

Oh I know, that's why I said "some things".

 Grimgold wrote:


So enough beating around the bush, I think they are going to change it so that cover just gives a flat armor save, depending on the cover quality. If ruins gave you a 4+ armor save light infantry like cultist and orks could see a huge jump in durability, like 40% against anti-infantry fire. Marines wouldn't benefit from cover, except as concealment to break LoS. That would handily explain the relative disparity in points increase.

I'm not sure that would be enough, but that certainly is a better system than we have now.

It seems absurd to me that light infantry have basically little to no incentive to use cover, given the prevalence of spammable AP-1/2 shooting (Hello aggressors), and the heaviest of armour wants cover more than anything because it makes a MASSIVE difference in their survivability.

Any system of cover should encourage people in t-shirts more than terminator armour to use it rather than the opposite.

the_scotsman wrote:
I am begining to heavily wonder what the point of light infantry is going to be in this edtiion.

1) you are no longer required to take them to get CP

2) If fighting in the fight phase is worded like Cut Them Down is (i.e., only models within 1" get to fight) then any unit larger than ~10 models is going to be pretty irrelevant in melee

3) You can no longer use light infantry to tie up vehicles effectively, and they're no longer needed for bubblewrap

4) the only points preview we have so far shows a light infantry unit getting a much bigger price hike than an elite unit

So.....what are they good for, lol? Why would I ever use a blob of ork boyz in this new edition - just because I like the idea of getting smashed to bits with blast weapons even faster than I do right now? Maybe because I'm super pumped about the ability for 1/4 of my mob to get to fight if I ever did get it into melee?

What is it with every edition of 40k putting more and more and more restrictions on melee while making shooting easier and easier?

Yeah, as someone who prefers infantry to tanks I'm already thinking that I won't be enjoying 9th edition.

Oh cool. Glad to see one of the only worthwhile rules DE get being handed out to every other army for free.

 vipoid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I am begining to heavily wonder what the point of light infantry is going to be in this edtiion.

1) you are no longer required to take them to get CP

2) If fighting in the fight phase is worded like Cut Them Down is (i.e., only models within 1" get to fight) then any unit larger than ~10 models is going to be pretty irrelevant in melee

3) You can no longer use light infantry to tie up vehicles effectively, and they're no longer needed for bubblewrap

4) the only points preview we have so far shows a light infantry unit getting a much bigger price hike than an elite unit

So.....what are they good for, lol? Why would I ever use a blob of ork boyz in this new edition - just because I like the idea of getting smashed to bits with blast weapons even faster than I do right now? Maybe because I'm super pumped about the ability for 1/4 of my mob to get to fight if I ever did get it into melee?

What is it with every edition of 40k putting more and more and more restrictions on melee while making shooting easier and easier?

Yeah, as someone who prefers infantry to tanks I'm already thinking that I won't be enjoying 9th edition.

Oh cool. Glad to see one of the only worthwhile rules DE get being handed out to every other army for free.

Hey, at least Drukhari vehicles will be able to charge into melee and use their good spikeybits and they can shoot the units they're in combat with without penalty

This will lead to a bold new tactic for Raiders, Shokkjump Dragstas and other antitank gun equipped vehicles where they'll smoosh into enemy tanks and go "haha, you want to shoot me you have to do it at -1 to hit! TANK CUDDLES!"

What I am actually more curious about is if the passengers in open topped vehicles can shoot in combat. My Drukhari Raiders with Kabalite Warriors would love that. The Talos is also very happy.

Personally I feel that this ruleset is much more cinematic than the game 8th edition ruleset. It was stupid that small infantry could tie down behemoths of tanks just by touching them.

 Grimgold wrote:

If we can see the problem GW probably could as well, and they've had quite a bit more time to think on it.

You'd think that, buuut.....

Of course they might well have spotted the problem (or intentionally designed it) and decided to handle it like this:
1) Let it stand for awhile & reap the sales of whatever models greatly bennefit the most from the "error". We've never seen them do this before....
2) Plan to sell you the "fix" in the next CA etc. They're not above this you know.

ccs wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

If we can see the problem GW probably could as well, and they've had quite a bit more time to think on it.

You'd think that, buuut.....

Of course they might well have spotted the problem (or intentionally designed it) and decided to handle it like this:
1) Let it stand for awhile & reap the sales of whatever models greatly bennefit the most from the "error". We've never seen them do this before....
2) Plan to sell you the "fix" in the next CA etc. They're not above this you know.

Considering their strongly shown desire to even things out between the different game types and make matched play even more balanced it's more likely that they did something to address things and they're only releasing enough info to keep the community wound up but not enough to calm the unrest.

I mean they ignore a number of questions in the stream and the Q&A episode that would have squashed some of this earlier.

Telemons just became hella broken with 24 autohitting S7 AP3 shots per turn. Followed by a rousing chorus of Fisto Roboto.

Pretty much in line with my opinion that GW want games to be "two armies rush at each other shooting, then have a big brawl in the middle" somewhat similar to almost every medieval movie with a big battle scene in it.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Pretty much in line with my opinion that GW want games to be "two armies rush at each other shooting, then have a big brawl in the middle" somewhat similar to almost every medieval movie with a big battle scene in it.

Lord knows that's the narrative they've pushed through the art for decades.
How many versions of this picture have we seen across the factions' art?

Space Marines are literally knights in space down to the use of heraldry. So yeah, scrappy punch outs are definitely a thing GW wants.

 Grimgold wrote:

tulun wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like the rules changes for vehicles (being a natural treadhead and always thinking the idea of CC locking tank shooting was silly thematically), I'm curious what they're going to be doing to offset the impact for infantry and assaults, because there's a lot of units which, if other things remain unchanged from 8th, are going to basically going to have no point on a table in 9th.

I'm terrified for my light infantry as an Ork.

Unless cover rules are kind, or they largely escape points increases, it seems like I'll need to move to a largely Mega Nob / mechanized force. Which is fine, because that style of Ork playing is fun, but boys are not looking so good beyond the usual tellyporta -> deep strike.. and even then, they can't really tag vehicles anymore.

If we can see the problem GW probably could as well, and they've had quite a bit more time to think on it. My bet is that your right on, something with the cover rules gives infantry a leg up, specifically light infantry, otherwise there would be no reason for the massive increase cultist got compared to the increase that intercessors got. Here is my thinking, whatever changed this edition benefits cultist alot more than it benefits Intercessors, cultist went up in cost by 50% where as intercessors went up by 20-ish percent. We haven't seen any justification for that disparity in the rules we've seen so far. In the current edition light infantry doesn't benefit as much as heavy infantry from cover, a +1 to save takes a 3+ to a 2+, which halves the chance of failing a save, where as going from a 6+ to a 5+ is only a 20% reduction in the chance of failing a save.

So enough beating around the bush, I think they are going to change it so that cover just gives a flat armor save, depending on the cover quality. If ruins gave you a 4+ armor save light infantry like cultist and orks could see a huge jump in durability, like 40% against anti-infantry fire. Marines wouldn't benefit from cover, except as concealment to break LoS. That would handily explain the relative disparity in points increase.

One rumor going around that could easily explain that is the Horde keyword.

Don't know how many here know how hordes work in AoS, but they have a variable cost depending on how big the unit is.
10 saurus warriors are 90 points, but 40 are 320. The cost per model goes down if the unit is big.

They could be implementing the same thing, so a cultist in an MSU is 6 points, but a cultist in a big unit costs 5. At the same time, units purchased this way get the HORDE keyword and get blasted easier.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Pretty much in line with my opinion that GW want games to be "two armies rush at each other shooting, then have a big brawl in the middle" somewhat similar to almost every medieval movie with a big battle scene in it.

Lord knows that's the narrative they've pushed through the art for decades.
How many versions of this picture have we seen across the factions' art?

Spoiler:

Well...two armies hiding behind cover with a ton of open space in the middle makes for poor art.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Well...two armies hiding behind cover with a ton of open space in the middle makes for poor art.

And a somewhat un-fun game too!

This is all great news for Forgefiends, Ccw+gun dreads, defilers, and especially Hellforged Predators.

It's going to be a whole new meta where you can put down a bunch of fairly durable vehicles that not only shoot, but also move up and engage in melee on turn 2-3. Should shake up the too common meta of gun blobs sitting back behind chaff screens.

Spoletta wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

tulun wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like the rules changes for vehicles (being a natural treadhead and always thinking the idea of CC locking tank shooting was silly thematically), I'm curious what they're going to be doing to offset the impact for infantry and assaults, because there's a lot of units which, if other things remain unchanged from 8th, are going to basically going to have no point on a table in 9th.

I'm terrified for my light infantry as an Ork.

Unless cover rules are kind, or they largely escape points increases, it seems like I'll need to move to a largely Mega Nob / mechanized force. Which is fine, because that style of Ork playing is fun, but boys are not looking so good beyond the usual tellyporta -> deep strike.. and even then, they can't really tag vehicles anymore.

If we can see the problem GW probably could as well, and they've had quite a bit more time to think on it. My bet is that your right on, something with the cover rules gives infantry a leg up, specifically light infantry, otherwise there would be no reason for the massive increase cultist got compared to the increase that intercessors got. Here is my thinking, whatever changed this edition benefits cultist alot more than it benefits Intercessors, cultist went up in cost by 50% where as intercessors went up by 20-ish percent. We haven't seen any justification for that disparity in the rules we've seen so far. In the current edition light infantry doesn't benefit as much as heavy infantry from cover, a +1 to save takes a 3+ to a 2+, which halves the chance of failing a save, where as going from a 6+ to a 5+ is only a 20% reduction in the chance of failing a save.

So enough beating around the bush, I think they are going to change it so that cover just gives a flat armor save, depending on the cover quality. If ruins gave you a 4+ armor save light infantry like cultist and orks could see a huge jump in durability, like 40% against anti-infantry fire. Marines wouldn't benefit from cover, except as concealment to break LoS. That would handily explain the relative disparity in points increase.

One rumor going around that could easily explain that is the Horde keyword.

Don't know how many here know how hordes work in AoS, but they have a variable cost depending on how big the unit is.
10 saurus warriors are 90 points, but 40 are 320. The cost per model goes down if the unit is big.

They could be implementing the same thing, so a cultist in an MSU is 6 points, but a cultist in a big unit costs 5. At the same time, units purchased this way get the HORDE keyword and get blasted easier.

This seems pretty feasible to me. I could see this for sure. That way you don't have 10 custodes counting as a "Horde" for instance.

Immolators should be fun again

 Sasori wrote:

This seems pretty feasible to me. I could see this for sure. That way you don't have 10 custodes counting as a "Horde" for instance.

I don't know, fantasy has to discount large units since it's hard for large units to all get into CC. 40k is more of a shooting game, so all of the models can be reasonably expected to participate.

Okay, somebody might correct me but this is how I understood the rule:

You can only shoot at the unit that your vehicle/monster is currently engaged with you.

You can target weapons at other stuff but you can only fire them if the unit engaged with you is dead from previous weapons... Otherwise you have to keep firing at the unit that is engaged with you.
So this would mean targeting changes, at least in this case, in that you dont declare all of the weapons at the start of shooting and it appears you might be able to wait and see how the first weapon goes before declaring/firing second weapon in CC.

This seems interesting and I wonder if this change spills into shooting phase in general.

Not sure if my ramblings make sense?

No. It looks like you declare you weapons all at once, and you can declare far away targets...

...but if the other guns fail to kill the close-combat target, then your far away target is lost.

I imagine this is done to keep a 3-flamer Russ from having to put its battlecannon and all 3 flamers into 1 Grot - instead it can put three flamers into the grot and the battlecannon into the Battlewagon and hope the 3 flamers can kill 1 Grot before resolving the cannon!

 vipoid wrote:


Yeah, as someone who prefers infantry to tanks I'm already thinking that I won't be enjoying 9th edition.

As someone who prefers tanks to infantry, they didn't actually fix what I think is wrong with tanks, namely that tank gun firepower is super anemic compared to tank hunter squads and high rate of fire weapons. Like, in no world should a 40mm quad gun or squad of guys with Bazookas be more effective than a 8.8cm or a 17pdr [well, there's arguments about the 17pdr's effectiveness given it's sabot shell issues, but that's another matter].

Also, they can only shoot the unit that tarpitted them, which is kind of odd since like I'd think that the main gun wouldn't be able to [lacking depression] but pintle and sponson guns might be able to. Huh.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No. It looks like you declare you weapons all at once, and you can declare far away targets...

...but if the other guns fail to kill the close-combat target, then your far away target is lost.

I imagine this is done to keep a 3-flamer Russ from having to put its battlecannon and all 3 flamers into 1 Grot - instead it can put three flamers into the grot and the battlecannon into the Battlewagon and hope the 3 flamers can kill 1 Grot before resolving the cannon!

The battlecannon can't target the grot. Blast weapons don't get to shoot at engaged units. They give a Leman Russ specifically as the example on the livestream.

Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.

I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.

I guess its time to get my last 3 Talos lol.

 Red Marine wrote:
Mobile tanks? Madness! The idea that infantry would move towards the enemy supported by accompanying armor is some kind of fever dream based fantasy.

I love it. I might even buy some Guardsmen.

Now we just need a suppression-by-fire mechanic.