Topic: The Big 40k Announcement

[Wyddr]

If 40k follows AoS in that multiwound hits carry over to new models, I'll agree with you. As it stands, the best Basilisk shot you can hope for will kill 2-3 Marines in a volley (you know, *presuming* there are more than 10 marines in a unit for some reason, though who knows how) and take *maybe* 4 wounds off a vehicle. You can do more with the guard for half the price in a half dozen places. Do they kill bikes? Sure, but then bikes are pretty easy to kill.

I don't want to derail this into a discussion about Basilisks exactly, though. I have the same opinion of Battlecannons (*unless* you're a Russ that can fire twice) and Demolisher cannons (which are pretty solid antitank weapons, but not much else) and I stopped worrying about Prism Cannons ages ago and have never really regretted it and the Tau Ion Accelerator Cannon is a complete waste of points. Frag Missiles remain singularly uninspiring, Frag Grenades doubly so (unless the whole unit gets to throw them, so thanks Stratagems!) and just making it so that you get max hits against big units doesn't really mitigate any of the math that goes into making single 1d6 Blast weapons virtually useless for shooting at big units.

So, okay, sure - I'll take your word for it for now. But unless there's something else Blasts are getting besides the modest bump as described, I still consider them vastly inferior weapons to your run-of-the-mill multishot conventional guns. I'll take three or four heavy bolters over a Basilisk any day of the week.     

[Cavalier]

Wydrr I'm sorry man, but Prism Cannons, stock Battle Cannon Leman Russ are some of the the most represented big guns in the game, especially at a competitive level before 9th edition. Fire Prisms have been outstanding ALL edition long and an absolute steal and have been a staple of competitive Eldar lists all edition long in an edition where tanks have hardly ever taken. Same thing with Leman Russ and all Leman Russ can double tap their turrets much like the Prism. They absolutley hammer vehicles and infantry and are premier weapons against Primaris Marines, Shining Spears, Skyweavers and other elite multi-wound models which absolutely rule the day presently.


And Brandon Grant won the LVO pure Guard list built on the back of 3x Battlecannon Leman Russ a single Basilisk and a Wyvern and of course an obligatory unit Bulgryn.

And I'm sorry but I am still not seeing your perspective on Basilisk. 200+ inch range, phenomenal AP and Strength, you can shoot it out of line of sight, and you'd rather have heavy bolters? I just dont see why.

Demolishers I can agree on. I believe the Ad Mech codex came out before the IG dex, and they instituted a minimum number of shots for the Dune Crawlers which should have been an institutionalized across many datasheets after that.

Anyways, we could probably go on, and on about this. I guess we'll just have to disagree and I dont want to clutter up the thread with my endless opposing views... but IMO fear the Basilisk  lol!

[Radec]

New overwatch rules are out. I'm pretty pleased as overwatched always seemed so artificially introduced into the game to combat the charge distance of 2d6 in 6th which was also another bulload of gak IMO. Most interesting was the activatable terrain bonus. All in all - an interesting reveal

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

I'm getting a kick out of the comment sections on Facebook where everyone is going on about how the Tau are going to get what's coming to them.  Except they all seem to miss the line about units that have an ability to allow them to overwatch can still overwatch without using the stratagem.

What do the Tau have?  An army wide rule for Overwatch.

I've never been against Overwatch, as much of 3rd to 5th was the race to get into combat.  I do think it swung too far as it can be an incredible challenge these days to make a charge while still being potent enough to break the unit.  Making it into a stratagem will definitely change the balance and make combat a viable source of combat again.

[magenb]

The universal stratagems so far have been interesting, in that they are not game breaking like being able to double attacks, etc. If the new codexes cut out all the overwhelming abilities, it could be a much more interesting game to play.

[Radec]

The new coherency rule ,leaked today, is all the rage. Basically ,as I am reading it, if you want to run  a line longer than 6 models you'll be forced to deploy as much more as a second row otherwise the unit will go poof. As it is written the longest lines will be atleast 2 ranks deep which effectively kills the conga line.
Also , if you want to maintain a certain length you'll have to invest in a third rank of models.
This rule is so good that I'm betting it will make its way in AoS

[Wyddr]

Totally agreed on that. That rule looks great and long overdue. Conga-line shenanigans (as much as I have shamelessly benefited from them over the years) are stupid and I'm glad they're limiting their effect.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

I love the coherency rules now!  I missed the days of previous editions where you had to move back to coherency if it was broken.  The most fun was with 4th when you could call shots if you did enough wounds, and put a wound on random guy in the middle of a line of devastators to make them move.

Ahhhh... the rage from that was golden lol.

But this change is perfect to get rid of ridiculous congalines stretching out to cover two objectives while also being in range of a unit buff.

[Calamity]

I’m particularly interested in seeing the wording of this new coherency rule too.  Both for 40k and for wider implications.

[Lachdonin]

I’m particularly interested in seeing the wording of this new coherency rule too.  Both for 40k and for wider implications.

They were actually just shown in the preview.

All models in a unit must maintain a 2" horizontal, 5" vertical coherency with one other model in their unit. If a unit consists of 6 or more models, it must maintain coherency with at least 2 other models in it's unit.

So, you can still build screens out of large units, it's just a little harder to do so. The most practical way would be to do a staggered line, but... I mean... You're still really only looking at Orcs, Tyranids and Chaos Cultists that are going to have enough bodies to really pull it off.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

I’m particularly interested in seeing the wording of this new coherency rule too.  Both for 40k and for wider implications.

The information can be found here, about 2/3rds down the page.  They detail both coherency, as well as how to handle the coherency check, which appears to happen at the end of the Morale phase.

[faitherun (Fay-ith-er-run)]

Have to stop lurking and chime in here.

I have been tentative about 9th and the hype around crusades for a bit...

Then in the GSC article they showed actions and one example...

Holy amphetamine parrot.

I feel that for ages GW has tried to make narrative objectives and missions. Too often these have not been balanced, or required too damn much bookkeeping for little return, or were just not fun.

From the small bit shown here, it feels to me that someone finally sat GW down and said, "Ok, tell me what you want to do. Good, now here is how we write that..."

I am actually stupidly stoked about this. Small units of troops that have, forever, been simply tax, now have a purpose again. And unlike in the ITC, where you have to nominate your engineers pre game, so they can get insta targeted, any infantry unit can Raise the Banners.

If the rest of the secondary objectives are done like this, I am very, very excited

[Calamity]

I know it’s great isn’t it?  The end of tax, and these units finally have a purpose again!

[Radec]

The full core rules have been posted by Games-Workshop and can be found here

Edit:  We do not condone the use of leaks.  As GW has posted the core rules, I updated your post to reflect that. --- GML

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

Since GW has posted the core rules, what are people's thoughts?

For me...

• I love how the rulebook is formatted.  You have the full rule, but then they have bullet points to highlight the important information!  This is going to save me hours of highlighting my books lol
• Engagement range:  No more of this crap about not being able to charge a unit because I can't fit on the narrow platform their unit is on!
• After charges, your opponent chooses the first unit to fight?  That's a huge change!
• I love the change to who can fight requiring models to be closer.  Make it feel like a desperate fight instead of strung out and covering a wide area.
• Models are no longer assumed to have a CCW in addition to any melee weapons they had.  No more of this "My terminators are going to hit you with their CCW instead of their power fist so I don't wipe your unit out and leave my guys exposed!"
• Objective markers are clearly defined!
• Those Outriders are freaking nasty!!!

Overall, I am quite happy with how this rules set looks and I can't wait to see what the FAQs are going to do for armies to make them work with them.

Edit:  Killersquid pointed something out to me on Facebook that I am not a fan of and hope will get FAQ'd lickity beslubbering split.

Dice can not be modified below a 1.  A weapon's AP modifies the die roll, not the model's armour value.  1+ saves are possible...

[Lord of Winter and War]

The +1 save thing has been confirmed by gw to ve intended, as that is how it works in age of sigmar.

However, nothing says that terminators are getting 1+ saves yet. The leaked rules for the blade guard vets shields might just belong to them. We just don't know.

Needless to say, I'm excited for the new edition.

For the charging things,  if you have Units which always strike first, they could potentially interrupt your opponents charging units,  which is a bit wild lol. Ynnari anyone?


*edit

Oh my God, 1+ save on custodes with storm shields. Jezzzus.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

The +1 save thing has been confirmed by gw to ve intended, as that is how it works in age of sigmar.

I'm going to wait to see official confirmation in an FAQ.  While that is how things work in AoS, these are still two different games.  You know they are going to have tons of people asking if this is legit lol.

However, nothing says that terminators are getting 1+ saves yet. The leaked rules for the blade guard vets shields might just belong to them. We just don't know.

If that were the case, then their shield would have been named something different.  They'd call it a Blade Shield or something like that.  Labelling it as a Storm Shield means that it will have the same rules across the board.  I think it's going to be clear that this is how they work now.

Oh my God, 1+ save on custodes with storm shields. Jezzzus.

Assuming they receive a huge price jump, I think a safe number would be 25 Sword and Shield Custodians + 2 Shield Captains + a Vexilla for 2000pts.  That's 77 1+ save wounds on Custodians.

Marines need an average of 40 St6+ shots to kill a Custodian Guard.  53 if they are covered by the Vexilla Magnifica.

[Lord of Winter and War]

The wording for how ap and saves work, is exactly the same between the two games. The interaction is the same.

We'll see if the storm shield change happens, and if so, there might be wording for the wargear mentioning you can't do better than a 2+ save. We'll see, but I wouldn't draw conclusions until the rules are officially released, as this is a lot of assumptions.

But,  mortal wounds still kill this stuff dead!

[magenb]

1+ saves are possible...

err so since an unmodified roll of 1 is always a failure.

So I would expect this mechanic to work like

1+ save
No AP weapon: saves on a roll of 2+
-1 AP weapon: saves on a roll of 2+
-2 AP weapon: saves on a roll of 3+

Is that right?

[Lord of Winter and War]

1+ saves are possible...

err so since an unmodified roll of 1 is always a failure.

So I would expect this mechanic to work like

1+ save
No AP weapon: saves on a roll of 2+
-1 AP weapon: saves on a roll of 2+
-2 AP weapon: saves on a roll of 3+

Is that right?

No, as you modify dice, not the save, and dice can never be reduced to less than a 1.

So, when you roll the dice you would get 1,2,3,4,5,6 as options.

With ap -2, you get on a dice roll the possibility of 1,1,1,2,3,4
 

The worst you can ever roll is a 1, which for a 1+ save is always a success.

Only the unmodified roll of a 1 on the dice (the literal 1 pip side) will be a fail as unmodified 1's always fail.

This is the same as the bastilidon in Age of Sigmar.