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.

Spoletta wrote:
The 9th edition will see a lot of happy smurfs.

I actually didn’t think about that. Yep, especially with penalty to hit For falling back and shooting being just another penalty that can go over minus one in the end

Tycho wrote:

And all those flying primaris tanks just lost one of their biggest advantages over real tanks.

I'm sure they'll get a rule that allows them to ignore this one. lol

Well power of the machine spirit was ignore heavy, so yeah lol

That being said Strom ravens and land raiders have that rule too so fingers crossed its an invuln or feel no pain cause the repulsor chassis, land raider chassis, and storm Raven, (I think that's everything with PotMS) are very expensive vehicles and I figure they're gonna get more expensive in this edition.

As someone whose army got kind of a fly, but without all the good stuff, rule I welcome all those nerfs.

But what is the Fall Back rule???

A.T. wrote:
I wonder if the units with 'hit and run' that lost the rule in 8th will see it return.

Don't think so. Night Lords only just got it back in stratagem form.

This is looking good for my Ultramarines army. My jetpack guys can still fall back and shoot, but with a -1 mod. Not too bad really.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 kingheff wrote:
I'm not a big fan of night spinners generally tbh so it's not something I'll be losing sleep over. Bad touching still looks like a very viable strategy against a lot of vehicles. Not many vehicles have enough guns to threaten a big unit of orc boyz, for example.

Think deeper, though. Not every list is Tau. Say its a Baal pred. I get to fire my Baal pred at the orks before I countercharge with some blood crazed BA assault unit. The tank doesn't have to work alone.

The Baal could finally be worthwhile. I don't I've ever even seen one.

Ive been testing (in 8th, of course) a BA list with 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators, and honestly, its been pretty solid, even with losing devastator doctrine turn one. Having kill shot for the Dakka predators gives you a lot of punch and all those tanks mean its hard to weather that much firepower from a central point on the table. If you come into bad touch them, then a BA character eats whatever came in to get them (normally a Libby Dread). It's not without flaws, but it hasn't been bad and if a better player than me put some thought behind it, it would probably be fairly decent.

So what will Machine Spirit be now? Ignore first -1 to hit?

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what will Machine Spirit be now? Ignore first -1 to hit?

I could see it changing to: May fall back and still shoot.

As someone said earlier, counter charge units might be very necessary now. As for Eldar fliers, looks like the all mech list just won't be as good which I'm fine with as variety of units is far more fun. I think it's safe to say that almost all armies will need to re-evaluate their tools with 9th edition, so many new factors in play. Definitely not a bad thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But what is the Fall Back rule???

That is, is the 1,000,000 dollar question. Everything, including the frustrations in support of or against terrain, overwatch, melee bumps, all of it is hinged on that rule.

All signs point to it not changing, but we don't know for sure.

Seabass wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But what is the Fall Back rule???

That is, is the 1,000,000 dollar question. Everything, including the frustrations in support of or against terrain, overwatch, melee bumps, all of it is hinged on that rule.

I almost feel like it will be Fallback, but you have to do it "towards your battlefield edge" like it used to be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But what is the Fall Back rule???

That is, is the 1,000,000 dollar question. Everything, including the frustrations in support of or against terrain, overwatch, melee bumps, all of it is hinged on that rule.

I almost feel like it will be Fallback, but you have to do it "towards your battlefield edge" like it used to be.

I'd be quite happy with that, especially if something was put in place so that if you couldn't complete the move due to enemy units being in the way you were wiped.

Flyers with the new Aircraft keyword will be able to just fly out of CC and still shoot, so that would seem to be the keyword you're looking for.

Ha. Duh! I completely forgot about that! Thanks! Yeah, I like the way that's shaping up.

almost feel like it will be Fallback, but you have to do it "towards your battlefield edge" like it used to be.

Either that, or something that makes it clear you can't go "forward" when falling back. It can be so easily abused as it sits.

Just making Fallback happen at the end of the Shooting Phase would solve so many issues.

Nightspinners mildly put out ? There is but one option unleash the Warphunter

Dudeface wrote:


I'd be quite happy with that, especially if something was put in place so that if you couldn't complete the move due to enemy units being in the way you were wiped.

That's why I think it is that way -- that break out strat mentions that very dynamic -- if you land w/i engagement range you die.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I'd be quite happy with that, especially if something was put in place so that if you couldn't complete the move due to enemy units being in the way you were wiped.

That's why I think it is that way -- that break out strat mentions that very dynamic -- if you land w/i engagement range you die.

That would explain the comment by "The Playtester That Shall Not Be Named" that tripointing would be completely different. Instead of locking up a unit by wrapping a single model you need to wrap the whole unit. Would make big units great for locking things in combat.

Okay, now this is a change I like.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just making Fallback happen at the end of the Shooting Phase would solve so many issues.

Actually I first though that would have been a good idea, but out of phase movements have proven, over the editions of 40k, to present many side effects which were a pain in the b.t. Sprint in the shoot phase was a horrible idea for instance.

Also, it is less time consuming to have all movements in as little a numbe rof phases as possible

So I prefer what GW have gone for, after having thought about it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I'd be quite happy with that, especially if something was put in place so that if you couldn't complete the move due to enemy units being in the way you were wiped.

That's why I think it is that way -- that break out strat mentions that very dynamic -- if you land w/i engagement range you die.

That would explain the comment by "The Playtester That Shall Not Be Named" that tripointing would be completely different. Instead of locking up a unit by wrapping a single model you need to wrap the whole unit. Would make big units great for locking things in combat.

Not to mention that feels tactically right rather than tripointing which was necessary but contribed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just making Fallback happen at the end of the Shooting Phase would solve so many issues.

Or rename the Charge phase to be the 'Charge or Retreat Phase' and have all Fall Back moves be declared before any charges can be declared.

That's definitely NOT what they'll have done, but I think it would have been a neat solution.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I'd be quite happy with that, especially if something was put in place so that if you couldn't complete the move due to enemy units being in the way you were wiped.

That's why I think it is that way -- that break out strat mentions that very dynamic -- if you land w/i engagement range you die.

That would explain the comment by "The Playtester That Shall Not Be Named" that tripointing would be completely different. Instead of locking up a unit by wrapping a single model you need to wrap the whole unit. Would make big units great for locking things in combat.

OK, I guess the boat left and I wasn't on it, but what is the deal with the playtester who shall not be named. Are they Voldemort or something? Why cant their name be spoken? If we knew who they were, we may be able to just ask them. Is this in reference to the Archwarhammer/40klore reddit kerfluffle or are we talking about a different "he who shall not be named"?

Seabass wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I'd be quite happy with that, especially if something was put in place so that if you couldn't complete the move due to enemy units being in the way you were wiped.

That's why I think it is that way -- that break out strat mentions that very dynamic -- if you land w/i engagement range you die.

That would explain the comment by "The Playtester That Shall Not Be Named" that tripointing would be completely different. Instead of locking up a unit by wrapping a single model you need to wrap the whole unit. Would make big units great for locking things in combat.

OK, I guess the boat left and I wasn't on it, but what is the deal with the playtester who shall not be named. Are they Voldemort or something? Why cant their name be spoken? If we knew who they were, we may be able to just ask them. Is this in reference to the Archwarhammer/40klore reddit kerfluffle or are we talking about a different "he who shall not be named"?

I believe it was Reece from FLG who said that. Gadz is just being silly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I'd be quite happy with that, especially if something was put in place so that if you couldn't complete the move due to enemy units being in the way you were wiped.

That's why I think it is that way -- that break out strat mentions that very dynamic -- if you land w/i engagement range you die.

That would explain the comment by "The Playtester That Shall Not Be Named" that tripointing would be completely different. Instead of locking up a unit by wrapping a single model you need to wrap the whole unit. Would make big units great for locking things in combat.

OK, I guess the boat left and I wasn't on it, but what is the deal with the playtester who shall not be named. Are they Voldemort or something? Why cant their name be spoken? If we knew who they were, we may be able to just ask them. Is this in reference to the Archwarhammer/40klore reddit kerfluffle or are we talking about a different "he who shall not be named"?

I believe it was Reece from FLG who said that. Gadz is just being silly.

Thank you. Good to know. Sorry, I sometimes miss the point of subtle humor.

Kind of a bummer for Doomsday arks, one of their big sells was being unable to be shut down. Now they can't fire their doomsday cannon in melee because it's blast, and if they fall back they can't fire at all. I suppose that doom 6 was destined to go away in the new edition, but I guess I was hoping it would go away because we had better options.

If I were to guess what power of the machine spirit does now, I'd say free overwatch instead of having to spend a CP for it. But I'm usually wrong on these things.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But what is the Fall Back rule???

It's the rule that describes how units fall back from combat, but that's not important right now.

And don't call me Shirley...

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But what is the Fall Back rule???

It's the rule that describes how units fall back from combat, but that's not important right now.

And don't call me Shirley...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimgold wrote:

If I were to guess what power of the machine spirit does now, I'd say free overwatch instead of having to spend a CP for it. But I'm usually wrong on these things.

Oh god the rage if that's true...

I'm hoping there will still be some accomodation for armies/units that are supposed to be 'skirmishy'.