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.

Drager wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:
Whether plasma clears intercessors depends on the intercessors. Iron hands with 5++/5+++ take a lot of plasma to kill. 4 plasma shots (average from plasma cannon with blast Vs 10 man squad) kills one intercessor on average with rerolls to hit and wound it's nearly 2, but not quite. Where are you getting the 7-10 plasma cannons you need to clear one squad? Can you get them for <60 points each including the chasis and support characters? Marines are a little mental ATM.

PC are D3 shots.

30 * .666 * .833 * .666 = 11 wounding hits before damage

5++ gets them a 44% to save one wound and 11% to save both. From here its just a gamble as to how many shots get wasted trying to get a second wound on an intercessor. Technically 7 should die, but that definitely won't happen. More like 3 or 4.

No damage spill over is the most brutal thing about 5+++.

Not an imperial player sorry for the mistake on them being Dd3. I though d6, which is why I underestimated the number of cannons. Makes the point much stronger, thanks. IH intercessors are insane.

No worries. Though if he means Dark Age plasma then they're straight dead, but not everyone has that (read: almost nobody).

As a rule of thumb for 2 damage on a 2W with a 5+++, consider a 70% hits passing. Takes in consideration both the double save and the chances that the model was already damaged by the previous shot.

Was working it out for Dark Technologist Disintegrators the other day. Those things are brutal, but still just kinda bounce off IH intercessors. 3*2/3*5/6*2/3 gives 60/54 wounding hits before damage. These things are damage 3, but they still have a 26% chance to survive, so we can assume 5 Disintegrators worth of fire will kill 4 guys. You need 12-13 to wipe the squad that's the most efficient DE can do and it's around 1000 points of dedicated transports.

Trying this with standard 2D Disintegrators is a slow road to sadness.

The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.

AGreed.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.

My experience through all the editions I've play has been that people say they want anti-horde weapons to deal with hordes, and yet whenever the task of list building comes around you'll still see most of the weapons in them still be majority anti-tank and anti-elite weapons. If there is a proper anti-horde weapon in a list is's almost always something that pulls double duty (like ignores LoS). It seem like people are completely reluctant to take heavy bolters or equivalent and expect their basic infantry weapons to do the trick, and are still unwilling to change when that doesn't work...

i for the lols of it made a round with a friend, i moved my 150 militia / cultist blob faster forward then he can roll aggressors including rerolls.

Tell me again, what is the issue here?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.

My experience through all the editions I've play has been that people say they want anti-horde weapons to deal with hordes, and yet whenever the task of list building comes around you'll still see most of the weapons in them still be majority anti-tank and anti-elite weapons. If there is a proper anti-horde weapon in a list is's almost always something that pulls double duty (like ignores LoS). It seem like people are completely reluctant to take heavy bolters or equivalent and expect their basic infantry weapons to do the trick, and are still unwilling to change when that doesn't work...

That's why primaris TM and Space marines in general are now constantly under the influence of FRFSRF for the upper ranges of their weaponry.
And yes people are reluctant, but that has to do with a lot of people not accepting that the game turned ,due to the sizecreep and enabling of pure skew, into what is in essence Rock, paper, scissors.
Tac need to counter Knights, ergo more AT, less models and firepower against small armies, Hordes normally countered by tac got alot less issues through that and have had allready a good matchup against knights, hordes then countered suddendly tac because they weren't so much tac anymore but more along the lines of Antitank bigades.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The issue is, what turns out to be the best approach to a horde? Let's say you knew you were facing a horde army in a game, what would you bring?

In 8th ed, people didn't bring flamers even when they expected to face horde. They brought tons of rapid fire weapons. When your solution to a horde is to shoot 120 shots at it instead of bringing flamers or blast weapons, then there is definitely an issue with these weapons.

Not everyone has rapid fire weapons though, orks don't have a single rapid option for example. Some factions have overpowered rapid fire platforms, yes, that is something that should be addressed. Blast weapons and flamers got hit by 8th because the edition's new mechanics reduced the number of shots these weapons used to have and also cut down their ap. Blast weapons seem to be buffed in 9th, I'd like flamers to get some love too.

A guardsman with a flamer on average gets a 100% return on say Ork Boyz or GSC Acolytes.

The issue is that a basic guy with a lasgun rapid firing gets a 50%~ return before any buffs/debuffs, so... its not really necessary. On top of the limitations of an 8" range.

But then if basic troops are bad, we end up in the dull old days of minimum units of min sized troops surrounded by heavy support options.

In general everything should be generally less lethal, and in turn things should be more specialised into anti horde/anti elite/anti armour/monster.

But that ship has probably sailed - and the usual lament, that I'm not sure people enjoy a game system where a lot of the time they don't do anything because the dice don't cooperate. (Yes yes, I know some people loved the metal boxes of 5th, you are lost on me.)

Flamers should get the "Always overwatch" rule.

I'll put this here, I guess.

If Fallback isnt a given this means a melee army will get to pick who fights first, after charger, on their opponent's turn.

Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.

So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?

A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man suads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.

I, for one, cannot *wait* for my min. unit of Guardians to be designated a horde if they have the audacity to bring a support platform along. Eldar hordes! Strong narrative emulated there, GW. Great work!

Catulle wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.

So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?

A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man suads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.

I, for one, cannot *wait* for my min. unit of Guardians to be designated a horde if they have the audacity to bring a support platform along. Eldar hordes! Strong narrative emulated there, GW. Great work!

Yeah, this is *really* weird. I feel like they haven't really thought through these size brackets, beyond "minimise the impact on the default Space Marine squad sizes", although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

 addnid wrote:
I don't even want to field my dark angels (far from being my main army luckily) anymore these days (DA vs SM us just marines vs marines to me, a mirror match of the boring kind), they just feel too much. And they aren't even one of thre worst marine offenders.
I really wouldn't want to be a Ravenguard or an IH (or any of "these") player.

At least DA don't get full rerolls. DA intercessors don't get any doctrine/etc. bonus for being in CC, but honestly just shock troop giving an extra attack first round is enough to deal with hordes.

Horde troops really can't match intercessors ATM, hopefully 9th won't make this worse.

Sure they do, from Invulnerable Save Hat Man, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'll put this here, I guess.

If Fallback isnt a given this means a melee army will get to pick who fights first, after charger, on their opponent's turn.

Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them

You are assuming fall back isn't a given, which based on reading the stratagem that was previewed is a very interesting interpretation.

Since they did not actually define "Fall Back" within the context of that stratagem. It would seem to track that "Fall Back" is determined somewhere ELSE, unless you believe that the stratagem previewed indicates that GW is planning on invalidating all rules that allow for shooting/actions after fall back in the text of the stratagem that replaces Fall Back?

To me, the strat read pretty clearly as "Fall Back, but a crappier version that allows you to get out of tripointing if your opponent has done the currently competitive "pillow 'n punch" tactic with one of their melee units"

the_scotsman wrote:
You are assuming fall back isn't a given, which based on reading the stratagem that was previewed is a very interesting interpretation.

Since they did not actually define "Fall Back" within the context of that stratagem. It would seem to track that "Fall Back" is determined somewhere ELSE, unless you believe that the stratagem previewed indicates that GW is planning on invalidating all rules that allow for shooting/actions after fall back in the text of the stratagem that replaces Fall Back?

To me, the strat read pretty clearly as "Fall Back, but a crappier version that allows you to get out of tripointing if your opponent has done the currently competitive "pillow 'n punch" tactic with one of their melee units"

I didn't interpret that post as referring to the Desperate Breakout stratagem, but just caveating in general that getting to fight first in the opponent's turn won't be very useful if they're able to walk out of combat before that can happen. We're still waiting to see if any changes have been made to the basic Fall Back, since yes, the wording on that stratagem strongly suggests that it is not the only way to fall back.

Catulle wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


There is no interpreting that rule. The wording is completely clear. If you think a morkanaut gets 9 shots against 6+ marines you are just flatly wrong. The rule references the result of the roll that determines the number of shots the weapon gets. A heavy 3d3 weapon that rolls 3 1's is a RESULT of 3, not 3 separate results of 1.

So your assertion that a D3 weapon represents the size of blast when combined into a 3D3 weapon has a blast so small as to never benefit ever?

A 3d3 shot weapon cannot benefit from the first part of the new blast weapons rule. It makes absolutely no reference to individual dice or numbers rolled on individual dice, and exclusively talks about the result of the roll to determine the number of shots the weapon fires.

There is zero interpretation to be had there. they even discussed it in detail during the stream. It's completely clear what the rule does, you're just inventing a fantasy to pretend that space marines will ever be under any kind of risk from that rule. A handful of weapons getting 3 shots instead of D3 if the marine player decides not to be braindead and make use of Free Space Marine Rule #5362 that allows them to just decide to split 10 man suads into 5 man squads at the start of the game does not constitute equal risk.

I, for one, cannot *wait* for my min. unit of Guardians to be designated a horde if they have the audacity to bring a support platform along. Eldar hordes! Strong narrative emulated there, GW. Great work!

Hordes should have been designated as 20+, would fall in line with daemon infantry special rules turning on at 20+ models.

There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.

 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.

Such as Genestealers and...

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.

Such as Genestealers and...

Grots and poxwalkers come to mind. Either way turning into a horde at 11+ feels a bit too early, but only turning into a horde at 20 would be too late I feel. Still feel this change to blast weapons was unnecessary.

 Castozor wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.

Such as Genestealers and...

Grots and poxwalkers come to mind. Either way turning into a horde at 11+ feels a bit too early, but only turning into a horde at 20 would be too late I feel. Still feel this change to blast weapons was unnecessary.

Okay. I legitimately did not remember those.

I'm like 95% sure Surprisingly Dangerous in Large Numbers is 20+, not 10+.

Woops, seems you are right. I haven't taken mine in ages so I wrongly assumed they only go to 20 models.

 Castozor wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There are plenty of horde units which get their horde bonus at 10 and cap out at 20.

Such as Genestealers and...

Grots and poxwalkers come to mind. Either way turning into a horde at 11+ feels a bit too early, but only turning into a horde at 20 would be too late I feel. Still feel this change to blast weapons was unnecessary.

Why do you think the change is unnecessary? I can understand thinking the implementation has issues, but let's be honest - weapons that had previous had a blast template seemed pretty under-utilised during 8th.

This new morale thing has helped a bit.

So let's add that to the pile of "hordes might be okay"

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7Dfq8Mq2S3RawF6Y.jpg

This here is the biggest reason why you will want big squads.

The same action can be performed only by a single unit per round, so if you want to make it, having 4x 5 man squads or a single 20 man squad will change a lot in terms of how easy it will be for your opponent to stop it.

Spoletta wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7Dfq8Mq2S3RawF6Y.jpg

This here is the biggest reason why you will want big squads.

The same action can be performed only by a single unit per round, so if you want to make it, having 4x 5 man squads or a single 20 man squad will change a lot in terms of how easy it will be for your opponent to stop it.

Yeah no in much the same way that the refrain "just take the objectives when you're playing against Tau" has historically sounded great in theory but then falls apart in practice so often

The safer bet will always be to not be forced into a situation where it realistically makes a difference whether you had 5 or 10 men in a squad

Equally, cumulative turns of maxed out firepower on a 11+ model unit is not going to facillitate taking objectives when they can be ripped to shreds with minimal effort from the outset because of the blast weapon bonuses, morale changes and potentially even issues with the new coherency rules

A possibly weird change could be if controlling an objective counts the models in a unit rather than models in 3" - but that seems like it could get broken quite quickly, and there is nothing to indicate that's where they are going.

The Raise The Banners High Action gives clear motivation to small units rather than big ones from my reading. Okay a unit of 5 models might get kicked off an objective - but nothing stops you putting 4 such units on the objective versus 1 big squad of 20. And the other 3 units can shoot in the turn you raise your flag.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7Dfq8Mq2S3RawF6Y.jpg

This here is the biggest reason why you will want big squads.

The same action can be performed only by a single unit per round, so if you want to make it, having 4x 5 man squads or a single 20 man squad will change a lot in terms of how easy it will be for your opponent to stop it.

Yeah no in much the same way that the refrain "just take the objectives when you're playing against Tau" has historically sounded great in theory but then falls apart in practice so often

The safer bet will always be to not be forced into a situation where it realistically makes a difference whether you had 5 or 10 men in a squad

Equally, cumulative turns of maxed out firepower on a 11+ model unit is not going to facillitate taking objectives when they can be ripped to shreds with minimal effort from the outset because of the blast weapon bonuses, morale changes and potentially even issues with the new coherency rules

I have won many games against T'au doing exactly that, focusing on scoring. It works. No one forces you to face a castled opponent if you don't need it to win.
Talking about them specifically, killing a small unit with SMS is easy, a bigger one is not. They don't have much else in terms of no LoS shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
A possibly weird change could be if controlling an objective counts the models in a unit rather than models in 3" - but that seems like it could get broken quite quickly, and there is nothing to indicate that's where they are going.

The Raise The Banners High Action gives clear motivation to small units rather than big ones from my reading. Okay a unit of 5 models might get kicked off an objective - but nothing stops you putting 4 such units on the objective versus 1 big squad of 20. And the other 3 units can shoot in the turn you raise your flag.

And then the opponent shoots away your 5 model unit which was taking the action, and it was all for nothing. Only one unit per objective can raise the flag.

Raising the Banner starts at the end of your movement phase, and gets completed at the end of your turn. The enemy can't really do anything to stop it. They have to go an reclaim the objective to turn it off, they can't just shoot the unit that did the action (it already put up it's flag).

BUT, units taking actions cant advance, fallback, shoot or charge while they're doing them, so in the case of Raise the Banners, if you did it with a big expensive 30 man unit, you've now just sacrificed that units combat capability for the turn. I'm sure there will be other actions that make taking large units a bonus, but it sure ain't for that example one.

 McGibs wrote:
Raising the Banner starts at the end of your movement phase, and gets completed at the end of your turn. The enemy can't really do anything to stop it. They have to go an reclaim the objective to turn it off, they can't just shoot the unit that did the action (it already put up it's flag).

BUT, units taking actions cant advance, fallback, shoot or charge while they're doing them, so in the case of Raise the Banners, if you did it with a big expensive 30 man unit, you've now just sacrificed that units combat capability for the turn. I'm sure there will be other actions that make taking large units a bonus, but it sure ain't for that example one.

Oh that's true I missed that.

So we are going to have actions that are completed in the same turn and actions that require you to make it through the round.... interesting.

I guess that a lot of the balance of 9th edition will be defined by the secondary missions available.