Jump to content

40K 9th ed


KennyD76

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ish said:

Frankly, I don’t think they need any re-roll auras. But, I’m pragmatic enough to be happy that they’re just going to be handing out re-rolls to fewer units.

Rerolls are a way to balance out an elite units shooting. The Issue marines come up with however is that they have more shooting than most horde armies so the Rerolls just make it oppriesive. HOPEFULLY Core units for them will be things like Tactical squads, Devastator squads, things like that while NOT being Aggressors, Eradicators, Centurions, etc. 

This also lets GW do something that could turn REALLY bad and that is let the supplemental codices have Core units that are different from the standard. So for instance Salamanders could have Eradicators as Core while Dark Angels have Terminators

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno; Making certain units into Core for some chapters exclusively, say Bikers for White Scars or Assault Squads for Blood Angels, would be a pretty easy rule to implement. It also wouldn’t be unprecedented, since in past codices they’d have certain Special Characters make certain units into Troops or something else along those lines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ish said:

I dunno; Making certain units into Core for some chapters exclusively, say Bikers for White Scars or Assault Squads for Blood Angels, would be a pretty easy rule to implement. It also wouldn’t be unprecedented, since in past codices they’d have certain Special Characters make certain units into Troops or something else along those lines.

Easy rule to implement, yes, however it means they are balanced differently. Let's say Aggressors are Core for Ultramarines but not Imperial Fists, Aggressors should cost more inherently for Ultramarines than Imperial Fists, while the Plasma toting Primaris could be core for Dark Angles so they should cost more.

The reason for the base cost difference is due to being able TOO be affected by rerolls.

The issue is, I dont see GW doing that which means it is likely an all or nothing. If they surprise me and do it that way and take the time to increase points by 3-5ppm then it would be interesting and fun.

 

Regardless of all of that, what I want is the Forge World book... i want to know what is happening to my Chinorks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ish said:

If the cost of the unit(s) handing out the buff is appropriate, than the cost of the unit(s) receiving the buff shouldn’t matter.

Sure it does. The unit handing out the buff is costed for the buff not for how many units can get the buff.

Things that can get the buff need to cost something for being able to use said buff otherwise there is no meaningful difference between chapters other than being able to give X or Y unit a reroll.

 

Those units need to pay for their "Core" status

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aggressors are supposed to be pushing forward, ahead of the main army.  The problem is they gave the bolter ones way too much range.  Flamestorm aggressors can't sit back for rerolls if I want them to do anything.

EDIT: the boltstorm ones should be 12" range, and the grenade harness should not get to fire twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to pick one up, just to have an instant board's worth of terrain for my small home table. That's basically exactly the product I wanted GW to put out, and lo and behold, they have catered to my unspoken desires. GET OUT OF MY HEAD, GW!

Also, I salute you, sir. That was the most staggeringly impressive feat of alliteration I've ever seen. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of them, but I’d want to see one “in the wild” before I bought one myself. GW’s terrain is on the pricey side, compared to MDF or 3D printed options... and, of course, good old fashioned styrofoam.

But, if the price is reasonable and the rules decent, I could see this being a very good option for the occasional home game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welp.

The guys over at Goonhammer got an early copy of the new Chapter Approved: Tactical Deployment Mission Pack and have posted a review. For the most part, it sounds pretty damn good... except for the glaring problem that it doesn’t have any datasheets for any terrain in it and it looks like GW will only be releasing datasheets for new terrain kits that are built in specific configurations to match the instructions.

Ugh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ish said:

Welp.

The guys over at Goonhammer got an early copy of the new Chapter Approved: Tactical Deployment Mission Pack and have posted a review. For the most part, it sounds pretty damn good... except for the glaring problem that it doesn’t have any datasheets for any terrain in it and it looks like GW will only be releasing datasheets for new terrain kits that are built in specific configurations to match the instructions.

Ugh.

 

That is a glaring issue and IF the community blows up on GW again then we could see this change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Reanimation Protocols rules seem unnecessarily complicated and rather harsh on multi-wound models. Destroyers of all types get kind of hosed by it. It would have been so much better to just say "after every attack, roll 1d6 for each model slain; on a 5+ that model comes back, otherwise, it's gone for good." This "adding dice to a pool" crap doesn't work well in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sgt. Rock said:

The new Reanimation Protocols rules seem unnecessarily complicated and rather harsh on multi-wound models. Destroyers of all types get kind of hosed by it. It would have been so much better to just say "after every attack, roll 1d6 for each model slain; on a 5+ that model comes back, otherwise, it's gone for good." This "adding dice to a pool" crap doesn't work well in this situation.

I'll disagree, respectfully. I think multi-wound models coming back on a 5+ (or a 4+ potentially) is too powerful.

EDIT: Maybe if the unit "healed" wounds for passing RP? Bringing back multi-wound models with only partial wounds seems like a better middle ground.

I'll agree that the new rule seems wordy at first glance, but seems like it will be pretty straight-forward in practice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Andrewgeddon said:

I'll disagree, respectfully. I think multi-wound models coming back on a 5+ (or a 4+ potentially) is too powerful.

EDIT: Maybe if the unit "healed" wounds for passing RP? Bringing back multi-wound models with only partial wounds seems like a better middle ground.

I'll agree that the new rule seems wordy at first glance, but seems like it will be pretty straight-forward in practice.

I was just tossing out an example, but I think you're right, if it healed a wound on a successful test it would be better. I just think it's a needlessly complicated rule that could be accomplished in a much fluffier manner much more simply.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, if it were up to me, I’d leave the whole reanimating thing as a bit of background “fluff” and just make the basic Necron Warrior tougher... But still have them die like every other model.

There’s too many steps in the game’s combat sequence already. Roll to hit, maybe a re-roll to hit, roll to wound, maybe a re-roll to wound, roll to save, maybe a re-roll to save, maybe a feel no pain roll, maybe a reanimation roll, maybe a morale roll... Ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...