40K 9th ed

[Mulgrok]

People going nuts over Eradicators, but they have a max squad size of 3.  Deepstrike a squad of 10 rapid fire Hellblasters and do way more damage with the bonus of targeting multiple units.

So much knee-jerk reacting.

[Skkipper]

6 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

People going nuts over Eradicators, but they have a max squad size of 3.  Deepstrike a squad of 10 rapid fire Hellblasters and do way more damage with the bonus of targeting multiple units.

So much knee-jerk reacting.

totally small squads will have there place but you will still see larger squads

 

[Ish]

9 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

People going nuts over Eradicators, but they have a max squad size of 3.

Well... They probably don’t have a maximum unit size of three. Remember that all the Primaris units in the Dark Imperium box had different unit sizes on the materials that came in the box than they did in the proper codex.

[Mulgrok]

21 minutes ago, Ish said:

Well... They probably don’t have a maximum unit size of three. Remember that all the Primaris units in the Dark Imperium box had different unit sizes on the materials that came in the box than they did in the proper codex.

I am optimistic that they will be like suppressors and eliminators.  Good units with severely restricted unit size.

[MexicanNinja]

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.

[blackvigil]

20 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

I am optimistic that they will be like suppressors and eliminators.  Good units with severely restricted unit size.

I'd assume they are like Aggressors. They are Gravis guys with specialized guns. It seems similar. That means a group of 6. Still pretty manageable. 

[Mulgrok]

6 minutes ago, blackvigil said:

I'd assume they are like Aggressors. They are Gravis guys with specialized guns. It seems similar. That means a group of 6. Still pretty manageable. 

Shooting 1 target they will get lots of value, but splitting fire is probably not cost effective.  I could see it.

[WestRider]

12 hours ago, WestRider said:

Serried ranks it is!

 

11 hours ago, Ish said:

 

Those are evenly aligned ranks. C'mon, man, I figured you of all people would know that serried* ranks are when each rank is offset by half a space. So you have two ranks, each with 2" spacing, with 1.7" between the two ranks.

Or, if you really only need to maintain the screen for one Turn, you can just do a little trio on each end, and keep the rest of it in a single line like before. Maybe sprinkle a couple of Models through as extra "fire breaks" if you want. Probably will take a bit of experimentation to figure out what the ideal balance is between ground coverage and morale coverage.

*For those who don't know, it's from the same root as "serrated".

[Ish]

I was making a joke, WestRider: Hyperbolic exaggeration for comedic effect.

[Munkie]

14 hours ago, ZeroStride said:

I dunno, the same reasons for taking large units are still the same reasons.

Fair enough. I don't mean to say the reasons for taking large squads have vanished. There are more downsides than ever for taking large squads, and no added upsides that we're aware of.

14 hours ago, ZeroStride said:

The whole unit coherency thing isn't a reason to run MSU, it's just a mental-tax for the benefits of getting the most out of your CP.

Of course mentally taxing things are a reason. Do you believe that mental fatigue is non-existent or that it is impossible to make mistakes as you get mentally fatigued? Yes, this is absolutely a valid reason.

14 hours ago, ZeroStride said:

The blast weapon thing isn't a reason to run MSU, it's the same as if your opponent rolls hot on their 3d3 hits, or d6 hits, etc (but it does reduce variance, which is strong)

Yes it is. "Your opponent might roll perfectly anyway, so it doesn't matter" is a terrible, terrible argument. By that logic, we should never put any effort whatsoever into writing optimal lists. If my opponent rolls perfectly, then it doesn't matter what choice I make, I'm going to lose. Avoiding built-in counters is another perfectly valid reason to run MSU.

14 hours ago, ZeroStride said:

Hell, larger squads are now more resistant to leadership effects, because let's say you have a squad of 5, 2 get killed, you fail leadership now you have 2 remaining, the remaining 2 flee on a roll of 1 or 2. That is incredibly powerful vs elite units, but a blob of 20 Tzaangor?

In this example, you're talking about a Ld 7 "elite" unit. I don't know very many of those. Ld 8 is far, far more common.

With Ld 8, the only number that matters is losing exactly 3 models. If you lose 4 and fail the test, the last guy dies anyway. If you lose 1 or 2, they can't fail. 

So if a Ld 8 unit with 5 members loses exactly 3 models, then rolls a 6 on combat shock, then a 1 or 2 on the last remaining model. So 1 in 18 chance of it mattering IF I lose exactly 3 models. 

It might come up once every few games. Large squads are in no way more resistant to morale than small squads. 

 

Just because the reasons aren't going to convince you to run MSU, does not mean the reasons don't even exist as you're claiming.

 

[ZeroStride]

Well sure, I wasn't saying they flat-out don't exist. I'm saying it's not an instant "larger squads are bad, and nobody can run them anymore" because that seems to be what is being argued.

Like, when I said, "It's a mental tax for the benefits of getting the most out of CP," I meant exactly that. It's a mental tax. Mental taxes are a thing...that's why I said it's a tax for the benefit.

Similar to the blast weapon change, I said reducing variance is strong, but it's not giving a new ability. There are now just additional tradeoffs.

There were already many reasons to run MSU. It's likely that a good amount of units will still want to be MSU, but units still have jobs to do. 

Units have to survive an entire opponent's turn to score objectives now, if the units aren't tough enough to survive by quality, then they need quantity. The same for character screening; you need 3 models. A squad of 5 taking 3 mortals from a Smite is now no longer a screen for the character. Packing multiple MSU squads around a character you need to protect now reduces the number of units you have who can reach other areas of the table.

There's tradeoffs, and there's jobs to do, and there's ways to mitigate the downside of large squads who have jobs to do (like, grab some apocalypse movement trays even), but this is not, "GW doesn't want anything but MSU." It does force tough choices both at list building time and during play. 

[Ish]

A recent post from Goonhammer seems to be leaning towards large units actually being rather good. Of course, they also add that:

Now a MAJOR caveat here is that we are working with incomplete information and it’s entirely possible that there are major elements that will dramatically change our understanding and perception of the rules. But this is the Internet and rampant speculation with partial information is a core part of the online experience.

[Munkie]

3 hours ago, Ish said:

A recent post from Goonhammer seems to be leaning towards large units actually being rather good. Of course, they also add that:

In fairness, they are exclusively comparing 8th ed leadership to 9th ed leadership. They do not mention or consider the other counters built into the ruleset into their conclusions.

[Ish]

Hence the “we don’t really know, but we wanna speculate anyway” caveat.

[WestRider]

6 hours ago, Ish said:

I was making a joke, WestRider: Hyperbolic exaggeration for comedic effect.

It was 3 in the morning. I get very literal at that time of day 😉

[InfestedKerrigan]

Ish, you say things in seriousness?

[Ish]

Just now, InfestedKerrigan said:

Ish, you say things in seriousness?

It’s theoretically possible...

[Munkie]

2 hours ago, Ish said:

Hence the “we don’t really know, but we wanna speculate anyway” caveat.

I understand that, just pointing out that the statement "A recent post from Goonhammer seems to be leaning towards large units actually being rather good." is a little misleading.

They weren't investigating whether large units were good or not. Nor did they conclude that large units were better off in the one area they were exploring.

Their conclusion is that large units are better off in one sense, and worse off in another. Better, because the whole squad won't get wiped automatically by failing morale; yet worse because when taking smaller numbers of casualties and still failing will result in more models dying than in 8th.

They concluded that large units are not really better or worse off with morale than they are in this edition--it's too scenario specific to make a definitive assertion. And I agree with that assessment. 

But if you take that and add blasts and coherency issues, and it's not hard to conclude that they're worse off than they were in 8th. But even then, that's not what's really driving my choice. The difference between 8th and 9th becomes irrelevant once we're playing 9th so it is only the relative value of 9th edition units.

As an example, if I want a raider filled with 10 wyches, I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't run them as 2 squads of 5. Same number of models, same role, but with immunity to these purpose-built counters, the ability to separate my forces if necessary, and additional weird things like spreading out transport destruction damage across both units so neither has to take Ld tests (and actually become immune to Ld for the rest of the game if they drop to 3 models left)

With 2 squads of 5, I can still wrap them around vehicles single file, build conga lines, and whatever half-assed placement my half-drunk self comes up with.

I'm particularly excited about the idea of charging large or medium size squads on 2 flanks and giving them a hell of a time deciding where to pull casualties. Can't pull too many from the middle or the squad will split in half and explode. If you pull wounds closest to the unit first attacking, you can't retaliate against it. If you pull wounds away from the unit on the other side, they'll still get to pile in and attack because they charged, or maybe they'll just decide to be out of combat. Then after you carefully pull wounds, you've got a pile in and a consolidate move in which you still cannot break coherency. Then a Ld test with even more careful casualty choices, then you check to make sure you're still in coherency. The whole time trying to keep squad leaders and special weapon troopers alive.

That's a whole stack of plates I don't have to keep spinning by spending the exact same number of points on the exact same number of models, but in a smarter way.

In 8th, there are pros and cons to be weighed before deciding how I want to arrange my troops choices in their transports. In 9th, there will be a correct choice and an incorrect choice for me.

Since 3x patrols will be the defacto Drukhari list design, I'll have access to 9 troops choices. That's 45 models of minimum squads. Or I could do 3 total squads arranged into 20/15/10 and know that I made a worse army. 

I would just like to see rules that encourage list diversity. Not hope that diversity thrives despite the discouragement of GW.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it alone now, as I've beat this horse to death.

[Mulgrok]

Looks like games will have a fixed length of 5 turns.  I think they are encouraging faster games for organized events.  It does have the drawback of making "concealed position" marine stuff  more powerful than ever.  Cover the board before the game starts and it is an uphill battle for other armies to reach objectives.

[Ish]

Random turn length is a sacred cow that needed to be slaughtered a long time ago. If it was an aspect of one or two narrative scenarios  where it added some sort of tension – Can you defend the spaceport long enough for the civilians to evacuate? – it wouldn’t be so bad, but when any given scenario has a 67% chance of going to turn six, and a 33% chance of going to turn seven...

The game becomes a chore. You either have to table your opponent or build up an unassailable lead by turn five. Otherwise, your opponent will drop all pretense of trying to win and just play for the draw. 

[WestRider]

5 minutes ago, Ish said:

Random turn length is a sacred cow that needed to be slaughtered a long time ago. If it was an aspect of one or two narrative scenarios  where it added some sort of tension – Can you defend the spaceport long enough for the civilians to evacuate? – it wouldn’t be so bad, but when any given scenario has a 67% chance of going to turn six, and a 33% chance of going to turn seven...

The game becomes a chore. You either have to table your opponent or build up an unassailable lead by turn five. Otherwise, your opponent will drop all pretense of trying to win and just play for the draw. 

I'm hoping that the addition of Progressive Objectives will be enough to offset the plague of "go second, hide until the last turn, jump on all the Objectives at the last minute" that I ran into way too often the last time they did fixed game length.

[Aaron W]

Ooh - Indomitus preorder on 7/11, in stores on 7/25! Still no official word on price, though.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/01/indomitus-pre-order-date-revealed/

[Mulgrok]

I just hope they don't sell out instantly.   My army could use all of the Marine units.

[Dark Trainer]

14 minutes ago, Mulgrok said:

I just hope they don't sell out instantly.   My army could use all of the Marine units.

Yeah, i'm considering splitting and taking a Necron side of that box. Don't really need more warriors and scarabs though. Thinking about it...

[Ish]

 

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.