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.

^It's now easier to hide vehicles, vehicles ignore movement penalties for shooting and vehicles can shoot into the close combat they're in. So, while not getting strictly tougher they do have some new advantages.

vehicles have become the force multiplier they should've been from the beginning.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's now easier to hide vehicles, vehicles ignore movement penalties for shooting and vehicles can shoot into the close combat they're in. So, while not getting strictly tougher they do have some new advantages.

We have a winner.

Vehicles don't get cover saves any more, so strictly speaking, they're even squishier than they were in 8th, not more resilient. Also anything that relied on a -2 or more to hit is way squishier, too. And that's even before the new round of weapon inflation we're seeing in October.

GW seems to think a good game is one where everything is in a binary state of either "can't be shot" or "dead."

I like that theyre changing things, but they really should have done this in an index so everyone gets their bump at the same time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

kinginyello wrote:
Interestingly enough, a str 5, -1 ap, 2D burst 3 heavy bolter is equivalent in damage to a str 7, -1 ap, 2D burst 2 autocannon at fighting a t7 3+ save target (like a rhino) . The heavy bolters are superior at targets less than t7 and will be stronger at higher than t7. With this change to heavy bolter, there is no target an autocannon is the preferred weapon.

Autocannons are still superior vs T6, so Carnifexes and Ravagers iirc. A pretty narrow band.

A narrow band where it falls the majority of monsters, light vehicles, and flyers.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Vehicles don't get cover saves any more, so strictly speaking, they're even squishier than they were in 8th, not more resilient. Also anything that relied on a -2 or more to hit is way squishier, too. And that's even before the new round of weapon inflation we're seeing in October.

GW seems to think a good game is one where everything is in a binary state of either "can't be shot" or "dead."

It was so rare to ever see vehicles in cover barring an army trait. Few vehicles relied on stacking multiple negatives and got spammed, but marine rerolls negated most of it anyway.

It brings so much more resilience to hide a vehicle turn 1 and then move it out to shoot without penalty than a -2 would ever confer.

psipso wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

kinginyello wrote:
Interestingly enough, a str 5, -1 ap, 2D burst 3 heavy bolter is equivalent in damage to a str 7, -1 ap, 2D burst 2 autocannon at fighting a t7 3+ save target (like a rhino) . The heavy bolters are superior at targets less than t7 and will be stronger at higher than t7. With this change to heavy bolter, there is no target an autocannon is the preferred weapon.

Autocannons are still superior vs T6, so Carnifexes and Ravagers iirc. A pretty narrow band.

A narrow band where it falls the majority of monsters, light vehicles, and flyers.

We don't know that auto cannons are staying the same. They could be getting a profile change as well.

bingo, I'd much rather have something hidden t1, then drawing the opposing units out by baiting them. you might be surprised what you can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Vehicles don't get cover saves any more, so strictly speaking, they're even squishier than they were in 8th, not more resilient. Also anything that relied on a -2 or more to hit is way squishier, too. And that's even before the new round of weapon inflation we're seeing in October.

GW seems to think a good game is one where everything is in a binary state of either "can't be shot" or "dead."

It was so rare to ever see vehicles in cover barring an army trait. Few vehicles relied on stacking multiple negatives and got spammed, but marine rerolls negated most of it anyway.

It brings so much more resilience to hide a vehicle turn 1 and then move it out to shoot without penalty than a -2 would ever confer.

You could hide things in 8th easily too assuming you were using the competitive rule that literally everyone used that made the first floor of ruins opaque. Everybody used big L blockers and those let you hide vehicles roughly as easily as you can now - the only exception was really tall stuff, most vehicles could hide no problem. You could also outrange stuff much more easily in 8th than in 9th with the bigger board. All in all it was easier in competitive 8th to keep a vehicle from being shot T1 than it is in competitive 9th, unless you pay the points to put it in reserve.

But like I said, GW seems to think the proper way for the game to be played is for units to either be "you can't shoot this at all" or "dead."

Voss wrote:

Dark lances suck.

Dark (and bright) lances have always been iffy weapons.

Even their special rule against vehicles (back with AV) was 50% fail, 16% glance and only 33% pen. Unless you were going against lower AV, and then you wanted more shots anyway.

They've never been useful enough.

What was the other 1%?

yukishiro1 wrote:
All in all it was easier in competitive 8th to keep a vehicle from being shot T1 than it is in competitive 9th, unless you pay the points to put it in reserve.

First floor blocking doesn't block as well as obscure - especially when the opponent has a height advantage. L-blockers were fine for when they actually existed. And no one really opted to shove behind terrain with a vehicle that was going to take a penalty especially when stacking penalties was possible. The particular deployment changes in CA19 had a lot to say about how that shook out as well.

That's nice, I dunno what it has to do with my statement though. It was just as easy, probably easier, to avoid having your vehicles shot at turn 1 in competitive 8th than competitive 9th, unless you pay the CP to reserve them. And if your vehicles were being shot at in 8th, they were more likely to have cover than they are now, and harder to hit as well.

Vehicles now die quicker than they ever have. And that'll only go up again once they inflate the stats of imperium weaponry. The game is getting more and more killy, not less.

Racerguy180 wrote:
bingo, I'd much rather have something hidden t1, then drawing the opposing units out by baiting them. you might be surprised what you can do.

Any plan that is based upon your opponents making mistakes is a very bad plan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's now easier to hide vehicles, vehicles ignore movement penalties for shooting and vehicles can shoot into the close combat they're in. So, while not getting strictly tougher they do have some new advantages.

Going to be honest given most of them have had price increases for those advantages, while they arnt seeing any stat changes or points reductions to take into acount the increased lethality of weapons, they objectively are getting worse in october than they were and thats going to be even worse than they were in 8th and frankly massed infantry was more common than massed vehicals/monster in 8th. IMHO 9th is going to become a very poorly balanced game for probably the first year or more.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's nice, I dunno what it has to do with my statement though.

I guess you didn't bother to read and understand it then.

I read what you wrote, it just didn't refute what I wrote in any way. It was as easy or easier to avoid having your vehicle shot at in competitive 8th than it is in competitive 9th (unless you had super tall vehicles and a bad deploy map), and in 8th, they had greater protection from terrain and modifiers. These are just facts, and nothing you wrote refuted any of them.

The fact that you might not have done it because you preferred to let your vehicle be blown off the table T1 than take a -1 to hit from moving (which almost every faction had a way to avoid) was probably bad tactics on your part, but it doesn't change the fact that it was just as easy to avoid having your vehicle shot at. You've spent a lot of time arguing that vehicles are better in 9th because they're more deadly, which is true - but they're also even squishier, and the fact that they are deadlier doesn't refute the fact that they're squishier.

9th is a more deadly edition than 8th was, especially for vehicles. They are both deadlier and more vulnerable, like pretty much everything in the game. GW apparently thought the problem with 8th was that it wasn't easy enough to wipe anything off the board that you could get LOS to.

Ice_can wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
bingo, I'd much rather have something hidden t1, then drawing the opposing units out by baiting them. you might be surprised what you can do.

Any plan that is based upon your opponents making mistakes is a very bad plan.

I didnt say I plan for them to make mistakes, but I will always position so I can take advantage wherever the opportunity arises.

I'm just happy GW realized that the main problem with 8th edition was that nothing died fast enough,

Nice that you've mentioned it.
Increasing the wounds of Tacticals and whatnot will make units more survivable and when the game ends after 5 turns, Marines will hardly loose the whole army.

 wuestenfux wrote:

I'm just happy GW realized that the main problem with 8th edition was that nothing died fast enough,

Nice that you've mentioned it.
Increasing the wounds of Tacticals and whatnot will make units more survivable and when the game ends after 5 turns, Marines will hardly loose the whole army.

Yeah because it taking the same amount of HB to to kill a tactical squad as their APC they ride in makes perfect sense.

Not to mention that doesn't really help other factions who are certainly not benifiting from any of those statline increases.

Ice_can wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

I'm just happy GW realized that the main problem with 8th edition was that nothing died fast enough,

Nice that you've mentioned it.
Increasing the wounds of Tacticals and whatnot will make units more survivable and when the game ends after 5 turns, Marines will hardly loose the whole army.

Yeah because it taking the same amount of HB to to kill a tactical squad as their APC they ride in makes perfect sense.

Not to mention that doesn't really help other factions who are certainly not benifiting from any of those statline increases.

Heavy bolters counter the wound increase of Tacticals.
But my shuriken weapons will then be twice as week against Tacticals.

In general, changing stats around is a good idea because the design space at the moment is very limited. It however is something that's best done in one go, where all armies are changed at once. Additionally, it's important to keep a proper focus on things. Anti-infantry weapons becoming better at anti-tank has to be compensated somehow. Especially in a game where there already is a need for so much antitank that taking just a few vehicles means that they get killed right at the start.

I love it, IF it means we're getting a decrease in the sheer number of army-wide rules bloat garbage that defined late 8th.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut we all know we're not getting that XD

Marines will still have

ATSKNF
Shock Assault
Bolter Discipline
Doctrines
2x Chapter Tactics

On eeeeeeeeeeeeveryyyyyyyyyy siiiiiiiingle model in the army! Leading to great fun balance for EVERYONE!

the_scotsman wrote:
I love it, IF it means we're getting a decrease in the sheer number of army-wide rules bloat garbage that defined late 8th.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut we all know we're not getting that XD

Marines will still have

ATSKNF
Shock Assault
Bolter Discipline
Doctrines
2x Chapter Tactics

On eeeeeeeeeeeeveryyyyyyyyyy siiiiiiiingle model in the army! Leading to great fun balance for EVERYONE!

In general, there are all these extra rules, but fundamentally, they add nothing to the game. They just add a pile of bloat that doesn't fundamentally alter the game experience. I sincerely hope that these things will be getting cut and won't be added to all other armies. There already is more than enough to remember about what's going on as it is.

ccs wrote:

Voss wrote:

Dark lances suck.

Dark (and bright) lances have always been iffy weapons.

Even their special rule against vehicles (back with AV) was 50% fail, 16% glance and only 33% pen. Unless you were going against lower AV, and then you wanted more shots anyway.

They've never been useful enough.

What was the other 1%?

Rounding. Do you need the explanation of why 1/6s have fractions when turned into percentages?

 Dolnikan wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I love it, IF it means we're getting a decrease in the sheer number of army-wide rules bloat garbage that defined late 8th.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut we all know we're not getting that XD

Marines will still have

ATSKNF
Shock Assault
Bolter Discipline
Doctrines
2x Chapter Tactics

On eeeeeeeeeeeeveryyyyyyyyyy siiiiiiiingle model in the army! Leading to great fun balance for EVERYONE!

In general, there are all these extra rules, but fundamentally, they add nothing to the game. They just add a pile of bloat that doesn't fundamentally alter the game experience. I sincerely hope that these things will be getting cut and won't be added to all other armies. There already is more than enough to remember about what's going on as it is.

You could cut bolter discipline entirely, greatly nerf doctrines to be more in line with Sisters of Battle Rites, and then add a few more restrictions like the Captain+Lieutenant Restriction and with an appropriate price bump to everything getting hugely boosted stats marines would be just fine.

But I doubt it. Every marine army will continue to benefit from no less than six army-wide special rules, and marine players will shriek about how they need those to be competitive even after comprehensive datasheet boosts.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

psipso wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

kinginyello wrote:
Interestingly enough, a str 5, -1 ap, 2D burst 3 heavy bolter is equivalent in damage to a str 7, -1 ap, 2D burst 2 autocannon at fighting a t7 3+ save target (like a rhino) . The heavy bolters are superior at targets less than t7 and will be stronger at higher than t7. With this change to heavy bolter, there is no target an autocannon is the preferred weapon.

Autocannons are still superior vs T6, so Carnifexes and Ravagers iirc. A pretty narrow band.

A narrow band where it falls the majority of monsters, light vehicles, and flyers.

We don't know that auto cannons are staying the same. They could be getting a profile change as well.

If they did, what would they do? +1 damage? What's funny about that is the HB would still equal the AutoC vs T8. Incedentally they'd also equal the Assault Cannon. I hate the current wound chart.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

psipso wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

kinginyello wrote:
Interestingly enough, a str 5, -1 ap, 2D burst 3 heavy bolter is equivalent in damage to a str 7, -1 ap, 2D burst 2 autocannon at fighting a t7 3+ save target (like a rhino) . The heavy bolters are superior at targets less than t7 and will be stronger at higher than t7. With this change to heavy bolter, there is no target an autocannon is the preferred weapon.

Autocannons are still superior vs T6, so Carnifexes and Ravagers iirc. A pretty narrow band.

A narrow band where it falls the majority of monsters, light vehicles, and flyers.

We don't know that auto cannons are staying the same. They could be getting a profile change as well.

If they did, what would they do? +1 damage? What's funny about that is the HB would still equal the AutoC vs T8. Incedentally they'd also equal the Assault Cannon. I hate the current wound chart.

You and me both.
Maybe +1 damage and +1 AP? Not sure.

I like where we're going. I don't like how we're getting there.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

psipso wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

kinginyello wrote:
Interestingly enough, a str 5, -1 ap, 2D burst 3 heavy bolter is equivalent in damage to a str 7, -1 ap, 2D burst 2 autocannon at fighting a t7 3+ save target (like a rhino) . The heavy bolters are superior at targets less than t7 and will be stronger at higher than t7. With this change to heavy bolter, there is no target an autocannon is the preferred weapon.

Autocannons are still superior vs T6, so Carnifexes and Ravagers iirc. A pretty narrow band.

A narrow band where it falls the majority of monsters, light vehicles, and flyers.

We don't know that auto cannons are staying the same. They could be getting a profile change as well.

If they did, what would they do? +1 damage? What's funny about that is the HB would still equal the AutoC vs T8. Incedentally they'd also equal the Assault Cannon. I hate the current wound chart.

You and me both.
Maybe +1 damage and +1 AP? Not sure.

I'm betting it'll be exactly the same. See, real space marines, and by that I mean loyalist space marines, don't really use REGULAR autocannons anymore, they use special "ironhail" or "suppressomundolicious" autocannons, which are heavy 2 Strength 7 ap-2 d2 and Heavy 3 strength 7 ap-1 d2 respectively. Meaning they don't have to worry about looking bad next to heavy bolters.

It's only those armies that are stuck with the totally different and much less good for reasons REGULAR autocannon that have to deal with this problem. In other words, peasants.

Problem I have with the wound increases is that it is now more efficient (in terms of units destroyed) to shoot your small arms at a Predator tank than at a Tactical Squad.

It takes 120 bolter hits to kill the tactical squad, and 99 bolter hits to kill a Predator.

We have entered an age when, if I want to destroy the enemy army, it is better to shoot my small arms at tanks and my heavy weapons at infantry.