40K 9th ed

[Ish]

- 4 VP per round if more enemy models are destroyed than friendly models (destroyed, not kill, so yes perils)

So this is going to be an automatic pick for my Custodes...

[Brandon]

25 minutes ago, Ish said:

 

 

So this is going to be an automatic pick for my Custodes...

Ouch for non elite armies!

[Ish]

16 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Ouch for non elite armies!

Horde Armies have the “2/3 VP at the end of your turn, 3 units wholely within 3 quarters, wholey within 4 and over 6" from the center“ objective as an almost guaranteed pile of points.

Gas up the Chimeras. 

[Dusldorf]

wonder how this will shake up list building: 

 

[Inquisitor66]

I noticed 2 things.  1. Engagement range is now .5 inch instead of 1 inch, this will dramatically reduce the number of models that can fight.

 

2. There is no mention of an increased engagement range for vehicles and monstrous creatures. Especially vertically, so I don't see a fix here for carnifexes unable to attack dudes hiding on high levels of ruins or within dense ones.

[Ish]

1. Engagement range is now .5 inch instead of 1 inch, this will dramatically reduce the number of models that can fight.

As I recall, 1/2” is the default mêlée range in AoS, but there are mêlée weapons have a range stat, just like shooting weapons, so units with spears or other large weapons often fight at 2”. Perhaps they’re going to add something like this in WH40k for those few units that have really large mêlée weapons?

2. There is no mention of an increased engagement range for vehicles and monstrous creatures. Especially vertically, so I don't see a fix here for carnifexes unable to attack dudes hiding on high levels of ruins or within dense ones.

They did tease us with this notion during one of the earlier previews... Maybe we just haven’t seen this rule yet?

Killing in 9th ed is half as important as it was in 8th ed (at most)

Cheers to this, says I. A full-throated and hearty Huzzah! 

[Threejacks]

"As I recall, 1/2” is the default mêlée range in AoS, but there are mêlée weapons have a range stat, just like shooting weapons, so units with spears or other large weapons often fight at 2”. Perhaps they’re going to add something like this in WH40k for those few units that have really large mêlée weapons? "

 To clarify--The "1/2" range in AoS is the distance a unit must move its first model within an enemy model to complete a charge against that enemy unit.After that each model in the charging unit is free to move the full charge distance but is under no requirement to even move into contact with the charge target unit(sounds goofy but this "free move" of sorts can come in handy sometimes) As for melee weapon ranges,AoS has 1",2" and 3" ranges.Melee weapon ranges would be an interesting addition to 40k, though I think its better served to keep AoS the "Melee game" and 40k the "Shooting game".

[Ish]

1 hour ago, Threejacks said:

As for melee weapon ranges,AoS has 1",2" and 3" ranges.Melee weapon ranges would be an interesting addition to 40k, though I think its better served to keep AoS the "Melee game" and 40k the "Shooting game".

Yeah, I wouldn’t want it for every unit in 40k, but it wouldn’t be too bad it it was just a special rule for a few things like Knights, Tyranid mega-bugs, and so forth.

[Ish]

"Allocate attack: Player commanding target then selects one model in that unit. If a model in the unit already lost wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, they must select that model.

Whoa. This is huge. A tactic that I’d been using for several editions with my Deathwing and planned to use with my Custodes was to plop one guy with a storm shield into my units for every five men. Use the storm shield to “tank” the occasional high AP hit and then let one of the others take the small arms fire.

Imperial Guard Infantry Squad with a lascannon shoots the squad, shield tanks it with 3++ Save. The eight guys with lasguns shoot, take it all on the 2+ Save of a regular trooper.

Now, not only must all shots from the one attacking unit be taken on that first man, he must continue to try to tank shots for the rest of the Shooting phase!

 

[Brandon]

6 minutes ago, Ish said:

 

 

Whoa. This is huge. A tactic that I’d been using for several editions with my Deathwing and planned to use with my Custodes was to plop one guy with a storm shield into my units for every five men. Use the storm shield to “tank” the occasional high AP hit and then let one of the others take the small arms fire.

Imperial Guard Infantry Squad with a lascannon shoots the squad, shield tanks it with 3++ Save. The eight guys with lasguns shoot, take it all on the 2+ Save of a regular trooper.

Now, not only must all shots from the one attacking unit be taken on that first man, he must continue to try to tank shots for the rest of the Shooting phase!

 

Yeah that is huge for Deathwatch vet squads. Well any squad with storm shields really.

[Brandon]

Core rules now available to download. Does anyone else think this leak is a normal marketing tactic?

[blackvigil]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf

 

Get your rules!

Yeah, I think the leaks were strategic.

[Ish]

I always assume that leaks for gaming content are a mix of genuine leaks from play testers, “leaks” from play testers that have the wink-and-a-nod from the publisher, and “leaks” directly from the publisher themselves.

[Brandon]

I like that melee is now defined at 1" horizontally and 5" vertically. I really like the bullet points in the rulebook. Everything so far is thorough, defined well, and clear enough to me. I wonder if the chapter approved points are going to "leak" tonight/tomorrow so that people can play over Treason Day Independence Day.

[Ish]

Each Convergence of Dominion consists of three Starstele (they’re the big obelisk-type things), which are seriously durable and armed with impressively deadly transdimensional abductors! Even better, they bolster units from your dynasty that are nearby and, with the help of a friendly Cryptek, can perform Translocation Protocols to redeploy across the battlefield.

Cool! It definitely seems like GW has decided to start offering terrain for factions other than “Generic Imperial.”

[PumpkinHead]

Core rules are released:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/02/free-core-rules-new-models-sighted/

Got some reading to do after work 🙂

[Salty Monkey]

Winters SEO posted a pretty good 9th edition rules outline video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI4KGcz6v70

For anyone who hates reading like i do 😉

[Ish]

Lemme run this past the hive-mind...

New rulebook pdf, page 18 (emphasis added):

The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model’s Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

 And from page five (emphasis added:

A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

This would me that if the leaked Bladeguard Veteran storm shield rule (4++ Invulnerable and a +1 to Save characteristic) is applied to units with a 2+ Save characteristic like Custodes and Terminators... They’ll have a 1+ Armor Save and be virtually indestructible! 

Let’s say you’ve got a 1+ Armor Save being hit by an AP -6 weapon:

If you roll a 1, an unmodified roll of 1 always fails; Save Failed.

If you roll a 2 through 6, it will be modified to a 1; This is equal to the Save characteristic of the model; Save Passed.

[ Laughs in Gold ]

[Munkie]

Yeah that all checks out. They're going to need to errata "unmodified" out of the 1 always failing. Otherwise, yes, they're immune to AP weaponry.

*edit*

Or I suppose they could errata in that no save can be improved to better than 2+. Solves the same problem a different way.

[andy]

For those who suspect the recent [big bad swear word]storm of leaks was GW guerrilla marketing: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/667861432?t=00h10m31s

Spoiler: It wasn't

 

[Ish]

16 minutes ago, andy said:

For those who suspect the recent [big bad swear word]storm of leaks was GW guerrilla marketing: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/667861432?t=00h10m31s

Spoiler: It wasn't

 

Slightly off topic, but for the love of Zod, why don’t people ever edit out the “Waiting to Start” nonsense from uploads of live stream reruns?

This video takes ELEVEN MINUTES to get to the actual content!?

[Brandon]

14 minutes ago, Ish said:

Slightly off topic, but for the love of Zod, why don’t people ever edit out the “Waiting to Start” nonsense from uploads of live stream reruns?

This video takes ELEVEN MINUTES to get to the actual content!?

Twitch makes it easy to push a button to do reruns. Not sure they care to delete the extra time as it would just cost time/money. Sure wish Twitch could automatically remove the pause screen for reruns!

I tried out Streamlabs which seems to be the streaming platform of choice for Twitch and others. You can have a waiting to start screen/pause/whatever while you connect to the streaming platform but are still getting things ready in the other window. My understanding of the workflow is you start your Twitch stream via Streamlabs which then shows the waiting to start screen(or anything you want to show), start your video chat program which involves sometimes restarting connections and making sure mikes work etc, load up your other content you want to show on the stream, arrange all the windows in streamlabs, then press start stream. Some content creators have a different workflow, but with all the pictures and stuff GW's stream shows it sounds like they have a 3rd person doing the stream and they just connect via a video chat like Zoom.

[blackvigil]

I watched the stream this morning. It seemed like they weren't happy with the leak, but since it was out and legit, they wanted us to have the material in the manner than they wanted to present. That makes sense. I'm glad they did that. Now we can start tinkering with ideas.

[ZeroStride]

I would be very careful about thinking "killing is less than half as important". I don't think the impact of Primary Objective scoring in your next command phase should be ignored. You may not gain any primary objective points for killing a unit, however you can prevent the scoring of primary points by killing a unit on an objective.

In addition, there are not only Secondary Objectives that directly gain you points for killing, but several of the positional secondaries specify things like: no enemy units can be within 6" (for example).

So you may not get casually get points for killing, but your opponent will be able to keep you from scoring if you can't clean them away from objectives.

In addition, I think that the secondaries discourage just castling up in your deployment zone and shooting, because you'll note that many of the secondaries are scored at the end if your turn (as opposed to primaries). So in order to deny these secondaries, you'll need to be out in the field (and of course to score them yourself you'll need to leave your DZ).

[Ish]

“Half as important” is probably over-selling the change (but it makes for a punchy blog post headline), but it definitely seems like raw body count is a lot less important than in editions prior.