MexicanNinja

How's the army coming along?

Im looking forward to using my land raider packed with death company.

On 7/29/2020 at 4:11 PM, Ish said:

Actually, it’s only the turret that matters. Sponsons are optional equipment, both in the rules and in-universe. Typically, the autocannon turreted Destructor gets heavy bolter sponsons to maximize its anti-infantry / anti-transport role and the twin-linked lascannon turreted Annihilator gets lascannon sponsons to maximize its anti-tank role; But Space Marines being all about tactical flexibility, it isn’t uncommon to make a jack-of-all-trades variant by swapping the sponson options around.

(There also used to be a Leman Russ Annihilator, a twin-linked lascannon turret on the indestructible iron box we all know and love and/or fear. I miss it.)

Pardon me, the correct way, and only acceptable way, to kit out a predator is with a flamestorm cannon turret and heavy flamer sponsors.

22 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Please...no...just no. Space marines already have everything,  they do not need more things.

 

I mean seriously Aggressors alone are broken as it is. 

Yeah, they're great against knights, flyers, the awesome dreads from forgeworld, mortal wound spams, anything with -2 AP...

Yeah, broken they are.

Just let me be able to use the thundefire cannon, who's been collecting dust for the past 3 years, in my blood angels army.

I refuse to add heretic chapters to my loyal vampires!!!

...space wolves are the only acceptable allies...

1 minute ago, Lyraeus said:

Correct. Some cover is harder to hit, can't see at all or a +1 to armor save

Thank you for confirming.

6 hours ago, Munkie said:

Ignoring the bonuses to a unit's save for being in cover. 2 str 8 AP -3, 3 damage; 2 str 8, AP -4, D6 damage

The Crimson Hunter got the power of the machine spirit boost that many aircraft got. However aircraft that already had assault weapons (like the Voidraven) didn't receive a benefit, but their points went up by the same amount anyway. 

It's basically a free upgrade that some vehicles got.

 

Correct me if I'm incorrect but not all cover is a bonus to saves, correct?

Some terrain is just modifiers to hit, from what I've read.

7 hours ago, Munkie said:

Dark Eldar flyers never had a fancy pivot rule.

Craftworld flyers got better for sure. The one thing holding back Crimson Hunter Exarchs was the fact that they have heavy weapons. If the leaks are true, they only went up by 20 points, but are going to be hitting on 2+ re-rollable and ignoring cover with their 4 str 8 shots.

They'll be obliterating vehicles and monsters with ridiculous ease.

Gotcha, I just remember dark eldar aircraft obliterating my storm ravens every time i played against them.

Ignoring the entire rules for all types of cover?

As for the points increase.  Every vehicle essentially got "power of the machine spirit".  Yes, i know that rule is gone but that's basically the upgrade every vehicle has.

10 minutes ago, Ish said:

Well, they have specific rules addressing how to set up units that come in from Strategic Reserve on “Battle Round 3+.” So I’m gonna assume that it’s possible... Otherwise, why have it say “3+”?

Cool cool, thanks.

Just now, Ish said:

Yes, until their datasheets get rewritten, by new codices or errata, they’ll still have their special pivot rule.

Aircraft and only Aircraft, not any unit with Fly, can enter Strategic Reserves any time their movement takes them off the table. In a later turn the game, the Aircraft can be redeployed anywhere on the table (9″ away from the enemy). 
 

@Ish tracking that rule.  Due to 40k 9th following the 5 turn rule, and looking very similar to AoS in many areas, I'm curious if you can put units in any type of reserves in turns 3-4 and have them come on the table turns 4-5.

In AoS matched play, any units in your army which are not on the table at the start of your 4th turn count as destroyed.

If that's going to apply to 40k 9th ed then that pivot rule is still great.

That's what I'm curious about.  There's many differences from open play, narrative play, and matched play.  With matched play having many modifications to core rules.

8 hours ago, Munkie said:

It isn't a wash. The only real defense of Eldar flyers was making them hard to hit. That can no longer be done.

The no stacking negatives to hit is disproportionately more brutal to armies that relied on it.

Eldar flyers were under costed and broke AF in 8th.

Did Eldar flyers retain their pivot rules?  If so, that's still a bonus.  I have yet to read the rules for matched play; however, can units enter strategic reserves past turn 3?

10 hours ago, WestRider said:

It wasn't really a comment on BA as such, so much as joking about the fact that theirs is the only Faction Focus so far that hasn't been credited to someone specific, and was seemingly put together by the WHC team or something

It's now credited by someone specific.  😎

2 hours ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Right? That venerable dread I have in the cabinet is going to be on the board a lot more.

I can't wait to run triple dreads with my libby dread....all in pods...

IT WILL BE GLORIOUS!!!!

3 hours ago, WestRider said:

I guess they couldn't find any playtester/tournament winner who was willing to have their name attached to positive statements about the Blood Angels?

As a Blood Angel player, I am loving what I've seen so far.  Strategic reserve aggressors.....yup.

I have already been using 2 Impulsors and limited targets on the table.

My characters were either near units or left to 'fend' for themselves against the enemy.  I hardly ever let Mepgiston or my support Chappy run off on their own.

I'm really looking forward to the Chappy ob bike and the bike unit to help apply pressure with my double intercessor squad in Impulsors.

I'm not making any conclusions about list building until I have the rules.  What I will say is that I have 3 dreadnoughts ready to see play again.  Not having the -1 makes those assault cannons awesome.

The techmarine is cool.  I will be getting that chappy on bike though.

27 minutes ago, Munkie said:

Is it that surprising that we didn't have the finer points locked down?

Even so, I think breachable shouldn't be used on ruins. Otherwise fly is almost completely meaningless this edition. 

 

Breachable is exactly how ruins worked in 8th.  Please provide some insight as to why breachable shouldn't be used on ruins?  Demo charges, busted windows, moveable debri, etc is what the breachable rule is representing.  Would you rather they force us to use CP on stratagems to purchase demo charges like we used to do in City of Death fights?

3 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

I think mobility will key this edition.  Probably why all of the Primaris Marine transports have "fly" keyword.  Use the terrain to block LoS and fly over it to the objective. Impulsor going to be very powerful by hiding then deploying troops after moving.

I'm glad I purchased my two Impulsors for my intercessor squads when i did.

41 minutes ago, Ish said:

I’m sure most of my questions about terrain will be settled by a proper read-through of the full rulebook... and I’m prepared to sacrifice certain levels of “realism” for efficient gameplay. 

 

I think GW did the terrain thing correctly when using GW terrain. It also, coincidentally, looks to easily adapt to front line terrain as well.

However, I do believe it's great that we have the tools to give our own terrain keywords to other terrain pieces made by different manufacturers.

Here's a quick and simple breakdown for 9th terrain from Good Ole Winters.

22 minutes ago, Ish said:

The “infinitely tall” terrain bugs me a bit, because it means a unit on the roof of a 10” tall building cannot draw line of sight over a 5” tall building... Wha–?

I’m also a little confused on how catwalks, gantries, overhead pipelines, and bridges (all staples of a grimdark industrial battlefield) Consider something like the terrain set, below, that we’ve all seen a thousand times...

Can a unit standing on the table surface shoot under the bridge at a unit, also on the table surface, that is on the other side of the bridge?

That's a great question.  It's up to you and your opponent to determine terrain.

I'll use the terrain you provided as an example:

1) the left piece could be considered to fill the role of a ruin.

2) the walkway could follow the rules for a barricade.

3) The piece on the right could be treated like a woods.

4) Write down what each section is, prior to the game, and use that as your rules reference for the custom piece 

What I've gathered from 9th terrain rules is that GW defined GW terrain and its up to players to determine non-GW standard.

Another example is 'debri'.  Crates and barrels scattered around offer nothing, terrain rules wise.  However, if you stack the crates and place barrels in a line there is nothing stopping you and your opponent playing it as an obstacle.

@Munkie I fully agree with you on terrain.  I'm so excited to see terrain matter again.  These new terrain rules are going to add much needed dynamics to the game.

It's my opinion that a good majority of the people complaining about line of sight are the people who play gunlines, never want to manoeuvre, and think shooting assault armies off the table in 2-3 turns makes them good at the game.

Just by the leaks, it appears that 9th will be a nice balance between "kill lanes" and maneuvering around the board.

I greatly look forward to playing my BA and Orks in this edition.

13 minutes ago, Ish said:

I found it hilarious(ly sad) that the reaction from so many people on Reddit to the Supreme Command Detachment was anger that they couldn’t field Mortarian and Magnus in an army.

Response "get good"

9 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

I keep seeing people saying HQ are less valuable because they are more vulnerable in 9th, but in my Salamander army I already charge forward with them and use them to draw fire because they are durable.

Its because those people were the people hiding swarms and scouts around the table (with no intention of using said units) while moving characters around with no care.

On 7/1/2020 at 8:50 AM, Ish said:

 

The Command Benefit means you only get the CP rebate if your Warlord is in the Supreme Command Detachment which means he will not in the Brigade/Battalion/Patrol Detachment, in which case it still costs 4/3/2 CP. You don't get extra CP by having this detachment, you simply won't lose any... But it does meant Magnus, Mortarian, and Roboute won't necessarily spend Ninth Edition decorating your shelves.

I like the "must be selected as your warlord".

10 hours ago, Munkie said:

You also can't deploy in a line anymore, even when not being cheesy. I understand what they were trying to do, but this seems like a weird solution to me. 5 models in a line is okay, 6 models would never stand side by side!

You just deploy in a modify wedge.  It's not going to effect my huge unit of boys.

This rule was meant for the undercosted screens of 10 models.

I can also unlock cheap Battalions with 6 units of 10 grots.

I'm really digging what's been previewed.  It seems like they are cleaning up words with the proper verbiage for clarity.  Its great, IMO.

22 minutes ago, necrontyr said:

Slight modification to Unit Coherency rules:

I really like the addition of the 3rd bullet.  I can't cheese out my grots no mores.