|
I assume that instead of effecting your total amount of CP you can instead effect CP regen EG the Iron Hands Tempered Helm
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Yeast posted:Players receiving the same amount of CP dependant on game size is cool, but then the comments on 'playing with what you want to take not what you have to take' is a tad concerning for competitive play. I'm 100% certain that when they say that, they mean that being effectively required to build your lists full of minimum strength battalions isn't good, and that you should be building your lists with what you actually want to field instead of what you feel like you have to field.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Thing is I sort of like the system forcing you to take a "realistic" force which includes troops. I mean realistically you will still want some troops, but things like the double GK paladin bomb are sort of confined by the fact you need 6 troops choices and 4 HQs, all of which are expensive. If you can just take whatever you want, why wouldn't you just take three massive units of Paladins? They'll murder everything standing on objectives anyway so no need to worry about objective secured. I'm pretty excited for the crusade rules though, it seems like something my friends would be interested in doing
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Yeast posted:Players receiving the same amount of CP dependant on game size is cool, but then the comments on 'playing with what you want to take not what you have to take' is a tad concerning for competitive play. I sincerely doubt the Rule of Three is going anywhere, so there will still be limits. That said, the de-emphasis of Troops is a little worrisome to me for the competitive realm. Combined with the new Blast rules and "Tanks can Shoot out of Melee" I'm having a hard time thinking of reasons not to play only Leman Russes, ya know?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Guessing that objective secured rules will be once again solely the domain of Troops units, thus a big rear end incentive to run them, on top of a lotta Troops being actually pretty good. Could also see specialised detatchments (Outrider, Vanguard et al) becoming way more restrictive. "Sure you can take 1 HQ and 3 HS, but that's it".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Objective Secures, of it sticks around, is a very gppd reason to take troops. Ues you can live the dream, take a 15 Leman Russ an watch as troops secure over them during the entire game. Even if its just non troops on non troops a tank counts as 1 for secure far as I know. There is indication that terrain will have obscuring as well as entirely new rule sets, plus someone can stick an objective somewhere a tank clearly can't reach. Put the pitch forks down.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Leman Russes have Objective Secured in a Guard Spearhead, hth EDIT: I should clarify that I agree that Troops aren't going anywhere but this is also the least relevant part of why 13 Leman Russes isn't going to be the first list that destroys 9th edition.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
Apparently, there won't be a reason to build your armies around troop battalions anymore. If you can just take more elites/heavies etc then we're going to be seeing a lot of odd-looking armies. I think someone even asked on the stream If there was going to be any sort of bonus or reward for having troops, and the reply was along the lines of: "Not really, you can just take all the fun specialised units instead". Edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Yeah Objective Secured is only useful if you actually have troops alive and on top of an objective, units that can murder everything work just as well whether the enemy has objective secured or not. If you don't need to screen as much and you don't need the troops for CP I'm not fully sure why you'd take a lot of units across lots of armies unless detachments are more restrictive (e.g. vanguard is 1-2 troops and 3 elites and thats it)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Just switch to a WHFB style percentage system to build lists.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
Floppychop posted:Alternative take. Helmets on everyone! The only way to paint Marines, Sisters, or any of the Eldar. But especially Sisters, those helmets are so cool, I'm bits ordering some for my Amalia Novena and Tariana Palos. Yeast posted:Players receiving the same amount of CP dependant on game size is cool, but then the comments on 'playing with what you want to take not what you have to take' is a tad concerning for competitive play. But then on the other hand, gently caress competitive play. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 01:36
|
|
|
I’m stoked for the cap on modifiers, and removal of what essentially was a troop tax for CP.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Just switch to a WHFB style percentage system to build lists. Joking aside, the AoS system seems much better to me. drat near every army for every faction runs a considerable amount of their flagship baseline troop. I love what it does for the game in terms of army theme and visuals.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
a witch posted:Maybe the Rule of Three sticks around? I wouldn't want to face a list like that. The rule of 3 was hacked together on very short notice. I expected them to make a series of carve-outs for specialty lists (Deathwing use a lot of Terminator squads, but were hardly overpowered) but it never happened. Hopefully there'll be something more elegant put in place for 9th.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
I think it's a given that the game won't actually be "take whatever you want" outside of Open Play, and will instead be similar to what we have now, just that CP won't be determined by detachment. The way I read it is that you'll see Vanguard, Outrider, etc. detachments more as the primary detachment someone is taking as opposed to the obligatory Battalion + whatever I can cram the units I want to take into.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:I’m stoked for the cap on modifiers, and removal of what essentially was a troop tax for CP. Yeah, I wanna take troops because they do useful things that I want them to do, not because I need more CP for my dreadnoughts
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
If Ork Boyz retain their efficiency in 9th, then with the talk of better terrain rules and help to melee/charging armies, i may legitimately run 120 of them just for a laugh.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
Yeah I think I'll still be taking similar amounts of Intercessors and guardsmen even if I don't have to. On a hobby front, painted my first ork this weekend     
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
Hey what's a good on meta ork list nowadays?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Hey what's a good on meta ork list nowadays? Smasha Guns, Shok Attack Guns and lots of them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
I wonder how they are going to handle assigning keywords? Detachments must still be a thing, right?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
ffoecaf posted:Yeah I think I'll still be taking similar amounts of Intercessors and guardsmen even if I don't have to. Badass
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
ffoecaf posted:Yeah I think I'll still be taking similar amounts of Intercessors and guardsmen even if I don't have to. I said so in ToT already but great work. Incidentally I painted my first Ultramarine recently! 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:I’m stoked for the cap on modifiers, and removal of what essentially was a troop tax for CP. Yeah a cap on modifiers is one of my favorite tidbits. And always hitting on 6s!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:58
|
|
|
Are we assuming that cap on mods is being enforced on a unit by unit basis or will mods on one unit be canceled out if it pushes a mod on another over +/- 1? As an example, if you take a minus to hit from advancing and firing assault or moving and firing heavy but target an enemy that's already -1 to hit, I wonder if it'll stack to -2 or stay at -1 and basically erase the consequences of firing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
ffoecaf posted:On a hobby front, painted my first ork this weekend Kicks total rear end. Pose, painting, gore, weathering just drat
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Painting faces is pretty much the only thing I really care about in this dumb hobby so my minis rarely have their helmets on, even though this is obviously not a great idea in a combat setting.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:Are we assuming that cap on mods is being enforced on a unit by unit basis or will mods on one unit be canceled out if it pushes a mod on another over +/- 1? No one's gone into that level of detail about it. They did seem to say that you will never get worse than a -1 to hit for any reason, which would suggest that yes, once you've moved a Heavy Weapon, no other penalty to hit would apply. But until we actually see the rule in print, we won't know for sure. And given the way GW often writes rules, maybe not until the first FAQ. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 07:19
|
|
|
"Seem to say" is really unreliable as far as the transcript goes since its not verbatim. It doesnt make sense because a units ability use a weapon and the targets ability to not get hit are 2 separate things in my head cannon. What about camo cloaks in cover and things like that? Does cover have a different effect other than modifiers to hit?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
xtothez posted:9E seems like it's going to tick nearly every box on my wishlist. Really looking forward to some sensible terrain rules, no more getting sniped through tiny gaps in ruins, or three-storey monsters being unable to hit things below their eye level. As someone who dropped out of 40k years ago, it's wild that they're still doing the same balance dance between true LOS and abstract LOS that was going on in 3rd/4th Edition.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 08:23
|
|
|
DiHK posted:"Seem to say" is really unreliable as far as the transcript goes since its not verbatim. Like I said, won't know till we see the rule written down somewhere. All we can do at the moment is speculate. Your interpretation may be correct, for all I know. DiHK posted:What about camo cloaks in cover and things like that? Does cover have a different effect other than modifiers to hit? Right now cover increases your Armor Save. A camo cloak increases it further. So a Scout has a 4+ normally, but leaps to a 2+ in cover if he has a camo cloak for the extra +1. Since it's armor save, not to hit, it shouldn't be affected by the limits on to hit penalties. Of course they also said they're completely re-doing terrain, so who knows if cover will even work the same way in 9th?  Roller Coast Guard posted:As someone who dropped out of 40k years ago, it's wild that they're still doing the same balance dance between true LOS and abstract LOS that was going on in 3rd/4th Edition. Eighth Edition went over most of the rules in the game and said "For every way we could possibly do this, let's choose the simplest version." Now in Ninth they seem to be saying "...except for this, that, and the other thing, because it turns out that simplest isn't always the best."
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Eighth Edition went over most of the rules in the game and said "For every way we could possibly do this, let's choose the simplest version." Now in Ninth they seem to be saying "...except for this, that, and the other thing, because it turns out that simplest isn't always the best." Cutting to the basics and then re-adding complexity in the places that felt the lack actually seems like a pretty good way to design a system.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 10:22
|
|
|
So the new edition chat has me a bit excited to play 40k again, after nearly 2 years of sticking to Necromunda and Infinity. Lots of the changes sound good, interested to see what separating CP from detachments does to army composition. I have a rather specialised Eldar Army, mostly jetbikes, so this is the sort of list I can bring. It would be great if it worked a little better, as currently lack of battalions is severely restricting it: (Saim-Hann Craftworld) Outrider Detachment: HQ - Autarch Skyrunner - laser lance (relic Novalance goes here and I often take the no-overwatch warlord trait) - 107 FA - 9 Shining Spears - inc Exarch with Star Lance (spend a CP for Withdraw bonus Exarch power?) - 272 FA - 3 Shining Spears - inc Exarch with Star Lance - 92 FA - 3 Vypers - BL, Shuriken Cannon - 195 FA - 3 Vypers - BL, Shuriken Cannon - 195 Elite - 5 Fire Dragons - Are any of the Exarch powers an advance on basic Crack Shot? Doesn't seem so - 110 Outrider Detachment: HQ - Farseer Skyrunner - witchblade (I usually just take Guide/Doom, could be Doom/Fortune) - 132 HQ - Warlock Skyrunner - witchblade (I typically take Jinx/Protect - 62 FA - 6 Windriders - TSC (I don't have the new models, would like to take Shuriken Cannons or SLs) - 108 FA - 6 Windriders - TSC (I don't have the new models, would like to take Shuriken Cannons or SLs) - 108 FA - 9 Swooping Hawks - (I should swap some Exarch power here as the base one is pants. Not really sure what. Better grenades?) - 107 Total: 1498 As well as being CP-starved, I know that the list isn't competitive just by being full of 'light' units with no serious numbers or hard resilient stuff. Insofar as I have a plan, it's to webway strike the Fire Dragons, buff up the big Shining Spears unit with psychic powers, and shove them forward to take out the big threats. Everything else tries to maneuver to put in maximum firepower while not getting too close to the bulk of the enemy force. Any advice on any of the detachments, warlord traits, special rules, exarch powers etc is much appreciated. Or just tell me what a bad idea this is. What I'd really like to do is run Eldar corsairs, but they don't really have a list anymore. Their only units are basic+jetpack corsairs (which my 'Swooping Hawks' actually are) and jetbikers, (which my 'Windriders' actually are). But it's actively worse to try and cram them into a detachment give the only HQs won't interact with them for auras etc.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 10:29
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:I said so in ToT already but great work. Even as an Ultramarines player, that is still my favorite Primaris Lieutenant jng2058 posted:They did seem to say that you will never get worse than a -1 to hit for any reason, which would suggest that yes, once you've moved a Heavy Weapon, no other penalty to hit would apply. I hope they don't go back to the days of can't fire heavies when moving. Though I suppose they could do something like moving a heavy or advancing and shooting assault weapons reduces BS so that you can still get that -1 to hit.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:So the new edition chat has me a bit excited to play 40k again, after nearly 2 years of sticking to Necromunda and Infinity. Lots of the changes sound good, interested to see what separating CP from detachments does to army composition. As a White Scars player this is a similar issue with what I go through, I have to pay a tax to fill out a Battalion and be competitive with CP, and then create an outrider detachment to fit both the bikes and Inceptors. Proper balance would be similar to 4th, where I could substitute troops for FA, and drop my HS slots maybe down to one (or even none) The kicker is that White Scars are an extremely CP heavy army to play, and often need to stack multiple strats. Oh and add in the fact that the right doctrine doesn’t even begin until turn 3.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Real, honest question inspired from previous chat about using HeroQuest/Space Crusade etc models in tournaments: Are the cardboard cutout models from older editions (say, 2nd ed Ork Dread) tournament legal? I know there's both ITC and GW run events but I'm curious if anyone has tried it in the last like 5 years
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
BaronVanAwesome posted:Real, honest question inspired from previous chat about using HeroQuest/Space Crusade etc models in tournaments: There's no defined standard of "tournament legal" it just comes down to individual TOs. I doubt anyone would say yes to the cardboard Ork or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
I feel like there may be a cap on die modifiers but I can't imagine even GW will be so foolish as to not stack penalties for move and shoot or having a cloak in cover, etc. Chances are these sorts of modifiers will interact with the rolls in different ways? I can see why they'd want to limit the modifiers for a roll...that stuff seems complicated and confusing for new players, and GW has to know they need to bring in fresh blood or die slowly with their aging player base. Roller Coast Guard posted:As someone who dropped out of 40k years ago, it's wild that they're still doing the same balance dance between true LOS and abstract LOS that was going on in 3rd/4th Edition. I agree with this 100%. True LOS feels so archaic. During the Warmachine heyday comparing how these LOS rules worked between 40k and WM really felt like a night and day situation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Roller Coast Guard posted:As someone who dropped out of 40k years ago, it's wild that they're still doing the same balance dance between true LOS and abstract LOS that was going on in 3rd/4th Edition. Corrode posted:There's no defined standard of "tournament legal" it just comes down to individual TOs. I doubt anyone would say yes to the cardboard Ork or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:47
|
|
