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.

Slayer-Fan123 789469 10842421 wrote:
Except all those Factions have access to Psykers via Inquisition, which are an add-on to any army.

Well, don't get me started on Space Marines getting extra powerful rules for being mono faction (that being the implied weakness that makes up for the strength) and then two tool kit bolt on factions now existing which bypass that.

I was completely ready for a rule in Engine War that allowed one Imperial Knight to join an army without breaking doctrines. Thankfully not there (saving it for the 9th edition codex probably).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
they would still have the most powerful overwatch in the game even if they had to pay 2CP for it.

This is just one more change proving melee is still gonna suck ass in 9th.

Maybe jumping the gun there? Most powerful overwatch =/= functional army if they were only able do it once. They don't melee much at all and psychic is non-existent. Owerwatch is their melee.

Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.

The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.

The problem is.... we don't really give a gak about overwatch from other armies, they are a wound or two off a charge at most, in most circumstances. It doesn't hurt there of course, but it's Overwatch from the problem armies like Tau that hold it back. I don't see why they couldn't have just had to pay 2CP for their super-overwatch, it really doesn't seem like it would be that bad. Ah well. I'll continue to judge once we've seen all the changes.

Here ya go, babies.

The largest challenge for the T’au Empire in the new edition is the change to the Fly keyword. It no longer offers units the ability to Fall Back and shoot

You're the baby.

That's a good rule though.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
You're the baby.

Woo hoo!

Bloody tau man... An entire faction that will play 8th edition rules.

RE; OP

Does it matter? I'm not a game designer but from 24 years experience of wargaming rules and the designers I have spoken or listened to core rules are very much there to be broken.

Dai wrote:
RE; OP

Does it matter? I'm not a game designer but from 24 years experience of wargaming rules and the designers I have spoken or listened to core rules are very much there to be broken.

People get obsessed with weird things. People are still talking about 'superheavies' being a bad inclusion to the game despite that not actually being a thing anymore. People get all up in arms about units 'breaking the core rules' but ignore the fact that Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Sniper, Scout, FNP, run and shoot, run and charge, etc are all well-liked examples of the core rules being broken.

People get obsessed with weird things. People are still talking about 'superheavies' being a bad inclusion to the game despite that not actually being a thing anymore. People get all up in arms about units 'breaking the core rules' but ignore the fact that Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Sniper, Scout, FNP, run and shoot, run and charge, etc are all well-liked examples of the core rules being broken.

There was a time when those USRs were semi limited. They were a clear exception. This is fine. But there is a big difference between, this unit ignores "a" core rule, and "This army can ignore ALL the rules". The problem a lot of people are calling out is that GW has a tendency to go to the extremes with some of this, so when they say "We're fixing problems "ABC" with rules "XYZ", the concern is that they tend to go over board. So I think everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop now, and several armies will totally ignore "XYZ", thereby defeating the work of those rules to begin with. It's one thing if, for example, Ultramarines maybe get a strat that allows some kind of minor Overwatch manipulation, but when the marine codex drops, if they have the capability to completely ignore pretty much all the core rules, that will be a problem. In recent history, this is the approach they've landed on, and that's a legitimate concern.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:


Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.

The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.

It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.

I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:


Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.

The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.

It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.

I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.

These are token changes? Jesus. I'd hate to see what you consider real change. You do realize they have points and day 0 FAQs coming, right?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:


Melee has recieved significant nerfs so far, in the addition of tanks being able to fire into combat, and no longer being able to guarantee safety through combat.

The removal of overwatch was delivered as some big buff to make melee viable.

It's not as much as nerfs were made to melee, but rather that no significant nerf were made to shooting lethality, which prevents melee from being relevant.

I think the mistake people make with 9th edition is thinking that GW is out to balance the game. They made a few token change to have some buzz about how they make the game evolve, but they don't address core problems which are in units datasheets and army rules rather than core rules.

These are token changes? Jesus. I'd hate to see what you consider real change. You do realize they have points and day 0 FAQs coming, right?

yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.

What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP

and much more.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.

What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP

and much more.

So, delete Terminators? Got it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.

What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP

and much more.

So, delete Terminators? Got it.

Nope; Make them 3+, and then make everything that was 3+, 4+ etc. before you ask, 6 remains 6.

Why is 6 special?

All you've done is make things even easier to kill.

 Argive wrote:
Before the ink is dry on the rule-book...

Ive never quoted myself before but I feel like a damn prohpet right now



I wonder who is going to get cut em down as a an army rule...

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
yes they are token changes which wont dramatically change the fact that shooting > melee, and marines > everyone.

What i'd consider real change ?
- reducing shooting distance across the board on all datasheets
- no rerolls
- no npn-HQ 2+ units
- no army-wide ++ or +++ saves
- invulnerable saves only on characters
- T6+ can only be shot a by weapons with AP

and much more.

So, delete Terminators? Got it.

Nope; Make them 3+, and then make everything that was 3+, 4+ etc. before you ask, 6 remains 6.

That would make intercessors even better then termintors.

ERJAK wrote:

Dai wrote:
RE; OP

Does it matter? I'm not a game designer but from 24 years experience of wargaming rules and the designers I have spoken or listened to core rules are very much there to be broken.

People get obsessed with weird things. People are still talking about 'superheavies' being a bad inclusion to the game despite that not actually being a thing anymore. People get all up in arms about units 'breaking the core rules' but ignore the fact that Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Sniper, Scout, FNP, run and shoot, run and charge, etc are all well-liked examples of the core rules being broken.

First of all including super heavies WAS a mistake, secondly many of the rules you bring up are given to a limited number of units not basically a whole army.

 Argive wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Before the ink is dry on the rule-book...

Ive never quoted myself before but I feel like a damn prohpet right now



I wonder who is going to get cut em down as a an army rule...

Honestly didn't expect them to have an army invalidate a 9th Ed change before the game was even out. I thought we'd be at least a few codexes in.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Before the ink is dry on the rule-book...

Ive never quoted myself before but I feel like a damn prohpet right now



I wonder who is going to get cut em down as a an army rule...

Honestly didn't expect them to have an army invalidate a 9th Ed change before the game was even out. I thought we'd be at least a few codexes in.

I mean an entire effin army ? lol.. Bold... GW... Bold..

Siegfriedfr wrote:
- invulnerable saves only on characters

Why?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
- invulnerable saves only on characters

Why?

Because they're awful on big powerful units.

Martel732 wrote:
Because they're awful on big powerful units.

For some big powerful units it is their only method of defence.

I mean what would Zoeys do without an invul save? Their whole shtick is their warp fields.

It's what Storm Shields do, otherwise what's the point of bringing them?

It's how the game represents the immense toughness of Terminator armour.

What the feth would Daemons do without Invuls?

I don't you've thought this through at all.

At a minimum take them away from IKs, FW dreads, and the like. And make SS more expensive on models liek Wulfen. Termiantors don't need them either. Melta should ruin them.

Martel732 wrote:
At a minimum take them away from IKs, FW dreads, and the like. And make SS more expensive on models liek Wulfen. Termiantors don't need them either. Melta should ruin them.

Terminator Armour was quite LITERALLY designed to walk in active fusion reactors and go "lol".

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
- invulnerable saves only on characters

Why?

Because they're awful on big powerful units.

I'll be happy if they would reduce the riptide invuln from 3++ to 4++

I think that's the only thing in my play group that sticks out. A 3++ on a T4 marine is pretty different than a 3++ T7 riptide. I don't even care about the 2++ on the archon that I can't shoot at anyway because he's a character.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
At a minimum take them away from IKs, FW dreads, and the like. And make SS more expensive on models liek Wulfen. Termiantors don't need them either. Melta should ruin them.

Terminator Armour was quite LITERALLY designed to walk in active fusion reactors and go "lol".

Dont' really care. They don't need to make AP worse than it already is. GW gave up on making the fanfiction match the game a long time ago anyway. Terminator suits could be used in ice cream shops. It doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
- invulnerable saves only on characters

Why?

Because they're awful on big powerful units.

I'll be happy if they would reduce the riptide invuln from 3++ to 4++

I think that's the only thing in my play group that sticks out. A 3++ on a T4 marine is pretty different than a 3++ T7 riptide. I don't even care about the 2++ on the archon that I can't shoot at anyway because he's a character.

Riptide should have zero invuln.

Martel732 wrote:
Dont' really care. They don't need to make AP worse than it already is. GW gave up on making the fanfiction match the game a long time ago anyway. Terminator suits could be used in ice cream shops. It doesn't matter.

Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

I can agree giving invulnerable saves to big vehicles is not the way to make them more resilient. Just give them more wounds! It makes high ap high damage weapons actually better agaisnt them than spamming medium ROF medium strenght and 2-3 damage weapons the best AT.

Unfortunately with 9th giving something more wounds will suddenly make it unable to benefit from some types of cover.