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.

a) Combination of smaller boards and mission-emphasis on holding those objectives in the middle makes for really engaging, interactive games. No weird denial Grey Knights you never see or Yathzee shoot-outs between parking lots you never move.

b) New models. Because, new models!!

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
New detachment and CP system.
Finite stacking of modifiers.
Vehicles not suffering move-fire penalties.

Other than that... nothing else. Having played a few games already, I've been unhappy with the new terrain rules, very unhappy with the 5" vertical engagement range, pretty much unhappy with the Blast rules, etc.

Curious what your beef with the new terrain is. I'm making rules for the terrain where I play, and I'm trying to avoid unfun rules interactions. I'm mostly avoiding Heavy Cover because, it seems like a common bugbear among our players. What are the traits you don't like and why don't you like them?

Infinite columns of ruins/trees. This combines with the 5" vertical engagement range to make elevation both worthless to have since you can't actually clear a line of sight and aggressively bad to use since you're all stacked up so one guy on the bottom floor who is in engagement range locks out the whole tower, which is IMO really stupid.

At one point in one game I had Long Fangs firing at Eliminators from the fourth floor of buildings, but because a 1 story tall forest where the trees didn't even come close to their level was between them, they still took the penalties. We've also had, multiple times, cases where one unit walked into contact with the base of the building and just locked the whole building, and where it also makes the charge really easy because you only have to make it to the ground floor essentially.

Like, I get that a 3 story tall Knight needs to be able to fight people at the level of it's chainsaw, but at the same time a 5 foot tall rifleman should not be able to bayonet people up two flights of stairs. Defending upper floors of structures should be hard to assail for close quarters combatants, and I feel like the general rule should have been 1" with a specific exception for Knights, Dreads, etc that allows them to fight up X".

Another vote for detachments and modifiers.

Though I guess the changes i'd be most excided to see would be the next points rebalance.

Im geniuely excited to see GW rip my Ork faction to shreds with these new rules and idiotic point changes that makes certain obsolete units even more obsolete.

9th edition is going to suck for orks.

Crusade!

(and terrain, and to-hit modifier limits)

As someone who lives on the fifth floor with trees around the building I can tell you that a forest blocking LoS to models on as much as the seventh or even eight floor makes complete sense. Trees can be huge and often are. Most models of trees people use on the battlefield are super tiny by comparison.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
New detachment and CP system.
Finite stacking of modifiers.
Vehicles not suffering move-fire penalties.

Other than that... nothing else. Having played a few games already, I've been unhappy with the new terrain rules, very unhappy with the 5" vertical engagement range, pretty much unhappy with the Blast rules, etc.

Curious what your beef with the new terrain is. I'm making rules for the terrain where I play, and I'm trying to avoid unfun rules interactions. I'm mostly avoiding Heavy Cover because, it seems like a common bugbear among our players. What are the traits you don't like and why don't you like them?

Infinite columns of ruins/trees. This combines with the 5" vertical engagement range to make elevation both worthless to have since you can't actually clear a line of sight and aggressively bad to use since you're all stacked up so one guy on the bottom floor who is in engagement range locks out the whole tower, which is IMO really stupid.

At one point in one game I had Long Fangs firing at Eliminators from the fourth floor of buildings, but because a 1 story tall forest where the trees didn't even come close to their level was between them, they still took the penalties. We've also had, multiple times, cases where one unit walked into contact with the base of the building and just locked the whole building, and where it also makes the charge really easy because you only have to make it to the ground floor essentially.

Like, I get that a 3 story tall Knight needs to be able to fight people at the level of it's chainsaw, but at the same time a 5 foot tall rifleman should not be able to bayonet people up two flights of stairs. Defending upper floors of structures should be hard to assail for close quarters combatants, and I feel like the general rule should have been 1" with a specific exception for Knights, Dreads, etc that allows them to fight up X".

Interesting. I quite like the 5" engagement range as someone whose job it is to make all the terrain, because the number of times either my models or my terrain have been damaged by people trying to reach their fingers in to move models to microscopically better positions in the upper floors is pretty infuriating. Also, I did feel like elevation granted a truly absurd advantage exactly to units like long fangs and retributors, so I'm happy to trade the occasional immersion-break of it not feeling like a guy with a bayonet should be able to attack up a floor in exchange for losing the immersion break of a unit on an upper floor being utterly, totally unassailable and invincible to all assault, no advantage you can't even try, even with flying units, even with giant monsters, even with super space aliums and daemons who can clearly climb pretty good.

Ruins do give you a benefit to cc defense, as well. They have Defensible, so you can give yourself either +1 to WS or 5+ overwatch, your choice. And if the increased assault distance is annoying, you could throw Difficult Ground on your ruins, which gets rid of the whole "trigonometry 7" charge out of deep strike" and makes it tougher to successfully make the charge roll.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
New detachment and CP system.
Finite stacking of modifiers.
Vehicles not suffering move-fire penalties.

Other than that... nothing else. Having played a few games already, I've been unhappy with the new terrain rules, very unhappy with the 5" vertical engagement range, pretty much unhappy with the Blast rules, etc.

Curious what your beef with the new terrain is. I'm making rules for the terrain where I play, and I'm trying to avoid unfun rules interactions. I'm mostly avoiding Heavy Cover because, it seems like a common bugbear among our players. What are the traits you don't like and why don't you like them?

Infinite columns of ruins/trees. This combines with the 5" vertical engagement range to make elevation both worthless to have since you can't actually clear a line of sight and aggressively bad to use since you're all stacked up so one guy on the bottom floor who is in engagement range locks out the whole tower, which is IMO really stupid.

At one point in one game I had Long Fangs firing at Eliminators from the fourth floor of buildings, but because a 1 story tall forest where the trees didn't even come close to their level was between them, they still took the penalties. We've also had, multiple times, cases where one unit walked into contact with the base of the building and just locked the whole building, and where it also makes the charge really easy because you only have to make it to the ground floor essentially.

Like, I get that a 3 story tall Knight needs to be able to fight people at the level of it's chainsaw, but at the same time a 5 foot tall rifleman should not be able to bayonet people up two flights of stairs. Defending upper floors of structures should be hard to assail for close quarters combatants, and I feel like the general rule should have been 1" with a specific exception for Knights, Dreads, etc that allows them to fight up X".

Interesting. I quite like the 5" engagement range as someone whose job it is to make all the terrain, because the number of times either my models or my terrain have been damaged by people trying to reach their fingers in to move models to microscopically better positions in the upper floors is pretty infuriating. Also, I did feel like elevation granted a truly absurd advantage exactly to units like long fangs and retributors, so I'm happy to trade the occasional immersion-break of it not feeling like a guy with a bayonet should be able to attack up a floor in exchange for losing the immersion break of a unit on an upper floor being utterly, totally unassailable and invincible to all assault, no advantage you can't even try, even with flying units, even with giant monsters, even with super space aliums and daemons who can clearly climb pretty good.

Ruins do give you a benefit to cc defense, as well. They have Defensible, so you can give yourself either +1 to WS or 5+ overwatch, your choice. And if the increased assault distance is annoying, you could throw Difficult Ground on your ruins, which gets rid of the whole "trigonometry 7" charge out of deep strike" and makes it tougher to successfully make the charge roll.

That reminds me, since engagement range is base to base, if you had a 6" tall first floor of a ruin (which is right about how high the battle sanctum is) that creates an entirely different kettle of fish.

Good:
Detachments and CPs (everyone starting at the same value, and paying, even nominally, for soup, not Voltroning nonsense together just to farm CPs.)

modifier caps,

vehicles/MCs that can move and fire effectively,
vehicles/MCs that can shoot in combat

tightening up some language and ordered steps (rerolls before modifiers)

Uncertain:
The two VP systems (primary and secondary). On the one hand, objective based looks potentially more interesting than 'kill everything.' On the other tentacle, a lot of these look super exploitable or just objectively terrible (slay the warlord, and others like it. Even if you accomplish it, you're down 9 potential VPs. )

Imperfect:
Blast. The different die sizes (particularly d3) make blast weird. I don't care particularly about the wyvern or thunderfire being good against 11+ models, but i'm irked that the really strong benefits for blast come to d3 weapons shooting against 6-10 models. Also that blast isn't usable in combat for vehicles/MCs. That's pure detriment that makes the general improvement take a step back.

Dislikes:
Terrain. mess of inconsistencies and wonky language.

Rerolls still abound.

 vipoid wrote:


I'm afraid I just can't get excited over a glorified errata.

So many times this. They could have swapped the CP for detachments around in CA 2017 or 2018. 2 pages, problem solved years ago.

I think I've been around the game too long. It's hard to feel excited for rules that seem less well designed than rules which have previously existed and been abandoned.

2nd Ed needed streamlining, there's no question of that, but we're still paying for mistakes made during the conversion to 3rd. 7th had fixed a lot, it's core rules were actually pretty good, the problems came from formations and lack of points corrections. Now we're paying for similar mistakes all over again because 8th had the ridiculous limitation of trying to fit everything into 8 pages.

Zustiur wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


I'm afraid I just can't get excited over a glorified errata.

So many times this. They could have swapped the CP for detachments around in CA 2017 or 2018. 2 pages, problem solved years ago.

I think I've been around the game too long. It's hard to feel excited for rules that seem less well designed than rules which have previously existed and been abandoned.

2nd Ed needed streamlining, there's no question of that, but we're still paying for mistakes made during the conversion to 3rd. 7th had fixed a lot, it's core rules were actually pretty good, the problems came from formations and lack of points corrections. Now we're paying for similar mistakes all over again because 8th had the ridiculous limitation of trying to fit everything into 8 pages.

I think 3rd was one of the best, really. 2nd was a dumpster fire. Not a popular view, I know.

New codex for Craftwolrds and hopefully some plastic models

New codex for Craftwolrds and hopefully some plastic models

New codex for Craftwolrds and hopefully some plastic models

New codex for Craftwolrds and hopefully some plastic models

New codex for Craftwolrds and hopefully some plastic models

I'm debating whether having new models is a good thing or not. On one hand replacing old models with new one without invalidating the old ones (like new Incubi or new Necron Warriors) is a very good thing, just like adding a a couple of extra new characters or replacements for old ones.

On the flip side new units could mean squatting existing ones. Ork buggies were awesome models but they did cause to extinguish the old buggies, new Ghaz also awesome but now the previous model in illegal as Ghaz as it's really too small. Ragnar had an ancient model that needed to be redone but now he is a primaris only, etc.

So yeah I'm all in favor of new models, but mostly those ones which replace older kits without invalidating the old ones.

I wouldn't want new ork models if that means that they force to retire existing models that I already own. I'd rather not having new models forever then.

You're not forced to retire your models. The only ones that force you to do that might be tournament organizers and that's their fault.
Ive never turned down a game just because someone brought a really old model.

My tau have old Broadsides even though I started collecting them way after they went OOP, because their Railguns look so much cooler than the rifle that the new Broadside has. All I did was put them on bigger bases that what they came with since the old ones looked too small anyway.

Zustiur wrote:
Now we're paying for similar mistakes all over again because 8th had the ridiculous limitation of trying to fit everything into 8 pages.

8e had the limitation of making sweeping changes to the core rules but few changes to the units and wargear, leading to a whole lot of (presumably) unintended side effects such as plasmaguns being better anti-tank than melta and guardsmen becoming twice as durable.
The 2e-3e switch didn't make the same mistake.

I'm exited about:
1) greatly reduced troop tax
2) FLY no longer falling back for free
3) terrain finally doing something
4) 5" vertical engagement range - units can no longer gain immunity to the melee of an entire speed freeks army by moving up one floor.
5) new missions and secondary objectives
6) smaller tables
7) moral no longer making 10+ models disappear while actually mattering to high morale units
8) vehicles being able to fight back when locked in combat

nekooni wrote:
You're not forced to retire your models. The only ones that force you to do that might be tournament organizers and that's their fault.
Ive never turned down a game just because someone brought a really old model.

My tau have old Broadsides even though I started collecting them way after they went OOP, because their Railguns look so much cooler than the rifle that the new Broadside has. All I did was put them on bigger bases that what they came with since the old ones looked too small anyway.

That's different from Blackie's examples though. The old buggies are a completely different unit from the new ones, and if you get the new Thrakka because he is totally awesome, the old one is fresh out of a job. Ragnar lost the ability to ride in transports with his previous friends because he turned primaris and only recently got other melee primaris to form a proper retinue for him.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
New detachment and CP system.
Finite stacking of modifiers.
Vehicles not suffering move-fire penalties.

Other than that... nothing else. Having played a few games already, I've been unhappy with the new terrain rules, very unhappy with the 5" vertical engagement range, pretty much unhappy with the Blast rules, etc.

Curious what your beef with the new terrain is. I'm making rules for the terrain where I play, and I'm trying to avoid unfun rules interactions. I'm mostly avoiding Heavy Cover because, it seems like a common bugbear among our players. What are the traits you don't like and why don't you like them?

Infinite columns of ruins/trees. This combines with the 5" vertical engagement range to make elevation both worthless to have since you can't actually clear a line of sight and aggressively bad to use since you're all stacked up so one guy on the bottom floor who is in engagement range locks out the whole tower, which is IMO really stupid.

At one point in one game I had Long Fangs firing at Eliminators from the fourth floor of buildings, but because a 1 story tall forest where the trees didn't even come close to their level was between them, they still took the penalties. We've also had, multiple times, cases where one unit walked into contact with the base of the building and just locked the whole building, and where it also makes the charge really easy because you only have to make it to the ground floor essentially.

Like, I get that a 3 story tall Knight needs to be able to fight people at the level of it's chainsaw, but at the same time a 5 foot tall rifleman should not be able to bayonet people up two flights of stairs. Defending upper floors of structures should be hard to assail for close quarters combatants, and I feel like the general rule should have been 1" with a specific exception for Knights, Dreads, etc that allows them to fight up X".

Interesting. I quite like the 5" engagement range as someone whose job it is to make all the terrain, because the number of times either my models or my terrain have been damaged by people trying to reach their fingers in to move models to microscopically better positions in the upper floors is pretty infuriating. Also, I did feel like elevation granted a truly absurd advantage exactly to units like long fangs and retributors, so I'm happy to trade the occasional immersion-break of it not feeling like a guy with a bayonet should be able to attack up a floor in exchange for losing the immersion break of a unit on an upper floor being utterly, totally unassailable and invincible to all assault, no advantage you can't even try, even with flying units, even with giant monsters, even with super space aliums and daemons who can clearly climb pretty good.

Ruins do give you a benefit to cc defense, as well. They have Defensible, so you can give yourself either +1 to WS or 5+ overwatch, your choice. And if the increased assault distance is annoying, you could throw Difficult Ground on your ruins, which gets rid of the whole "trigonometry 7" charge out of deep strike" and makes it tougher to successfully make the charge roll.

An upper floor is near totally unassailable to close quarters assault, though. That's why there were walls with wall walks and siege ladders and towers to overcome them. I feel like that upper floors being highly defensible against infantry close assault should be a feature of the game.

Dreadnoughts, Carnifexes, Knights, etc that could reach a higher floor should have had an extra rule on their datasheet that their vertical engagement was taller than standard because they are taller than standard so that Wolf Lord Mc Wolfface can't just stand of the bottom floor outside the window and kill guys on the third.

Now im wondering what kind of buildings youre using that have floors 2.5" thick.

Old gw ruins allow fighting one floor directly up. Sector mech is way too tall for that. I havent tried it with the new sector imp.

I understand that in medieval warfare, having the high ground meant you might as well give up, dont try it anakin. But from a game balance perspective thats pretty gakky considering it costs you nothing to be up on an upper floor with a shooting unit. Its generally free real estate.

So now it gives you a buff, and its not an auto-win, cant even try situation. Great IMO. Units being gun turrets all game is boring gameplay

the_scotsman wrote:
Now im wondering what kind of buildings youre using that have floors 2.5" thick.

Old gw ruins allow fighting one floor directly up. Sector mech is way too tall for that. I havent tried it with the new sector imp.

I understand that in medieval warfare, having the high ground meant you might as well give up, dont try it anakin. But from a game balance perspective thats pretty gakky considering it costs you nothing to be up on an upper floor with a shooting unit. Its generally free real estate.

So now it gives you a buff, and its not an auto-win, cant even try situation. Great IMO. Units being gun turrets all game is boring gameplay

We have a good number of structures with floors between like 2.5" and 3.5" tall. Fighting 1 floor up is still pretty ridiculous, though.

I think that "can't even try" is probably what should be the case for a infantry melee unit trying to assault up a structure without assistance. That's why you field units with distinct roles and capabilities in your army.

The only army that could conceivably be forced to not have any way to service a structure is Daemons... which is very much a problem with the one army that is a direct port from fantasy with no sci-fi elements and not with the game as a whole. Anyone else can create enough space with fire to let their CQC units get up there.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Now im wondering what kind of buildings youre using that have floors 2.5" thick.

Old gw ruins allow fighting one floor directly up. Sector mech is way too tall for that. I havent tried it with the new sector imp.

I understand that in medieval warfare, having the high ground meant you might as well give up, dont try it anakin. But from a game balance perspective thats pretty gakky considering it costs you nothing to be up on an upper floor with a shooting unit. Its generally free real estate.

So now it gives you a buff, and its not an auto-win, cant even try situation. Great IMO. Units being gun turrets all game is boring gameplay

We have a good number of structures with floors between like 2.5" and 3.5" tall. Fighting 1 floor up is still pretty ridiculous, though.

I think that "can't even try" is probably what should be the case for a infantry melee unit trying to assault up a structure without assistance. That's why you field units with distinct roles and capabilities in your army.

The only army that could conceivably be forced to not have any way to service a structure is Daemons... which is very much a problem with the one army that is a direct port from fantasy with no sci-fi elements and not with the game as a whole. Anyone else can create enough space with fire to let their CQC units get up there.

Mmm, You mean like a flying unit maybe? Who cant even try in 8th. Or a big tall monster...who cant even try. Maybe a unit like rippers who can burrow, or a climbing unit like genestealers, oops, nope. Also cant try.

Sorry, I cant see terrain rules that make it as easy to powergame a situation where your opponent can only interact via shooting as a superior system. Permissive is better for game health especially considering the ultra ultra permissive shooting rules in 8th/9th where a single atom of a target model being visible means you shoot with usually full effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Total invincibility to melee is not in the power budget of units like HWTs, retributors and devs. They get more punch for less points than vehicles because they need to be protected. Being able to stand on a crate and become unassaultable was 100% gakky design.

Again: add difficult ground and keep defensible on your buildings if you want shooters standing on upper floors to be the smart tactical decision it should be.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Now im wondering what kind of buildings youre using that have floors 2.5" thick.

Old gw ruins allow fighting one floor directly up. Sector mech is way too tall for that. I havent tried it with the new sector imp.

I understand that in medieval warfare, having the high ground meant you might as well give up, dont try it anakin. But from a game balance perspective thats pretty gakky considering it costs you nothing to be up on an upper floor with a shooting unit. Its generally free real estate.

So now it gives you a buff, and its not an auto-win, cant even try situation. Great IMO. Units being gun turrets all game is boring gameplay

We have a good number of structures with floors between like 2.5" and 3.5" tall. Fighting 1 floor up is still pretty ridiculous, though.

I think that "can't even try" is probably what should be the case for a infantry melee unit trying to assault up a structure without assistance. That's why you field units with distinct roles and capabilities in your army.

The only army that could conceivably be forced to not have any way to service a structure is Daemons... which is very much a problem with the one army that is a direct port from fantasy with no sci-fi elements and not with the game as a whole. Anyone else can create enough space with fire to let their CQC units get up there.

Mmm, You mean like a flying unit maybe? Who cant even try in 8th. Or a big tall monster...who cant even try. Maybe a unit like rippers who can burrow, or a climbing unit like genestealers, oops, nope. Also cant try.

Sorry, I cant see terrain rules that make it as easy to powergame a situation where your opponent can only interact via shooting as a superior system. Permissive is better for game health especially considering the ultra ultra permissive shooting rules in 8th/9th where a single atom of a target model being visible means you shoot with usually full effect.

You seem to have missed where I said that being able to fight up floors should have been a rule for monsters and large things alone that might conceivably reach up those floors; with the general case being that Guardsmen, Space Marines, Hormagaunts, and other infantry units are stuck on the ground. Knights not being able to fight things at the height of their chainsaw was silly, but we've traded it for "man with bayonet can fight guys 4 times his height above him", which is inarguably worse for both verisimilitude, tactics, and the game in general.

Melee doesn't need to be able to arbitrarily engage targets that are far away to "enforce parity with shooting", because close quarters combat is a tool not a strategy, and you use the right tools for the right job.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...You seem to have missed where I said that being able to fight up floors should have been a rule for monsters and large things alone that might conceivably reach up those floors; with the general case being that Guardsmen, Space Marines, Hormagaunts, and other infantry units are stuck on the ground. Knights not being able to fight things at the height of their chainsaw was silly, but we've traded it for "man with bayonet can fight guys 4 times his height above him", which is inarguably worse for both verisimilitude, tactics, and the game in general.

Melee doesn't need to be able to arbitrarily engage targets that are far away to "enforce parity with shooting", because close quarters combat is a tool not a strategy, and you use the right tools for the right job.

A Knight with a chainsword can totally fight at the height of his chainsword, you just have to build your Knights without bases.

I'd love it if GW moved to measurement from the silhouette rather than from the base a la Infinity (instead of "within 1" of the base" you get "within 1" of a cylinder described by the base and the height of the model"), but that seems unlikely.

i like that space marines will get some buffs, because they need them

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Now im wondering what kind of buildings youre using that have floors 2.5" thick.

Old gw ruins allow fighting one floor directly up. Sector mech is way too tall for that. I havent tried it with the new sector imp.

I understand that in medieval warfare, having the high ground meant you might as well give up, dont try it anakin. But from a game balance perspective thats pretty gakky considering it costs you nothing to be up on an upper floor with a shooting unit. Its generally free real estate.

So now it gives you a buff, and its not an auto-win, cant even try situation. Great IMO. Units being gun turrets all game is boring gameplay

We have a good number of structures with floors between like 2.5" and 3.5" tall. Fighting 1 floor up is still pretty ridiculous, though.

I think that "can't even try" is probably what should be the case for a infantry melee unit trying to assault up a structure without assistance. That's why you field units with distinct roles and capabilities in your army.

The only army that could conceivably be forced to not have any way to service a structure is Daemons... which is very much a problem with the one army that is a direct port from fantasy with no sci-fi elements and not with the game as a whole. Anyone else can create enough space with fire to let their CQC units get up there.

Mmm, You mean like a flying unit maybe? Who cant even try in 8th. Or a big tall monster...who cant even try. Maybe a unit like rippers who can burrow, or a climbing unit like genestealers, oops, nope. Also cant try.

Sorry, I cant see terrain rules that make it as easy to powergame a situation where your opponent can only interact via shooting as a superior system. Permissive is better for game health especially considering the ultra ultra permissive shooting rules in 8th/9th where a single atom of a target model being visible means you shoot with usually full effect.

You seem to have missed where I said that being able to fight up floors should have been a rule for monsters and large things alone that might conceivably reach up those floors; with the general case being that Guardsmen, Space Marines, Hormagaunts, and other infantry units are stuck on the ground. Knights not being able to fight things at the height of their chainsaw was silly, but we've traded it for "man with bayonet can fight guys 4 times his height above him", which is inarguably worse for both verisimilitude, tactics, and the game in general.

Melee doesn't need to be able to arbitrarily engage targets that are far away to "enforce parity with shooting", because close quarters combat is a tool not a strategy, and you use the right tools for the right job.

I see the 9th Ed terrain paradigm as much more in line with 4th, in that the rules are abstracted to represent a situation beyond what the modeled terrain explicitly represents. Floors in the terrain piece are there to facilitate the placement of models, while the rules are assuming the real structure is more complex. There are stairways and ladders not on the model, and CC is not just hitting each other with swords but involves small arms fire, grenades etc. as it would in actual battle. Thus, models can engage those upper levels because they're using some array of tactics to get there. Genestealers are climbing up walls and maybe through walls, Guardsmen are tossing Grenades before storming a stairway, etc.

1. New/Better Terrain cutting down Lines of Sight more readily, nerfing static gunline armies.
2. Smaller board sizes helping assault
3. Points increases across the board = Smaller Games to start
4. Rules for each point level, and missions for each point level.
5. Unit coherency rules.
6. *****HARD CAP TO POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE MODIFIERS TO HIT at +1/-1******
7. Cool new units, advancing storyline
8. Scoring at the start of your turn.
9. Overwatch is mostly gone.
10. Fly is no longer a get out of jail free card for assault.

nekooni wrote:
You're not forced to retire your models. The only ones that force you to do that might be tournament organizers and that's their fault.
Ive never turned down a game just because someone brought a really old model.

My tau have old Broadsides even though I started collecting them way after they went OOP, because their Railguns look so much cooler than the rifle that the new Broadside has. All I did was put them on bigger bases that what they came with since the old ones looked too small anyway.

As long as dimensions and wargear are the same I don't think there's anyone who would invalidate old models. 2nd edition warbikes, gretchins and boyz are still perfectly fine for example, so are 3rd edition metal nobz, meganobz, burnaboyz, boyz with big shoota/rokkit launcha, dreads, stormboyz and killa kanz.

But when old ghaz is on 40mm base and the new one is on 80mm base and 4x bigger the old model is basically squatted as game experience would be completely different by using it instead of the new one. I'm playing it as the leader of a Meganobz squad now, not as the legendary ork leader.

New buggies are not updated models of already existing units but completely new ones, with different size and wargear. They even got a base!

Really mess with people - run the original Ghaz (& Makari) in a modern game as Ghaz...

Perfect for hiding behind non-obscuring terrain