Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The worst part of a new edition is always that loophole that is exploited at the first big tournament. BA were “OP” at the start of 8th b/c the first big tournament was won by someone running all aircraft + Dante....but the only reason it was BA was b/c Dante was the only Chapter Master aura to keep up at the time. Dante has been practically nonexistent for the rest of 8th.

 

And by loophole I mean the classic RAW vs RAI dilemma. The above mentioned example led to the swift issue of the Boots on the Ground rule. Some would see it as the skill of the player to find the margins of such things and bust them open like a cavalry charge making a breach in the enemy lines. I can appreciate that, but I also think wonky things that are RAW like being unattackable in melee because you’re standing on a shipping crate just ruin the game. It’s ultimately on the designers to rectify such things. We’re all human and know one can predict everything, but I think it’s very important for designers to speak up and say “yea, not supposed to work like that...we’ll be back with a fix soon” to at least give cover to TO’s and such.

 

My hope is that GW’s “acquisition” of talent from the big tournament scene will stave off much of the early exploitations.

tl;dw points review:

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-9th-edition-munitorum-field-manual-points-review/

Video catalogue of points changes:

https://m.youtube.com/c/StrikingScorpion82/videos

 

(we're about 14 mins in on the Astartes video)

Edited by Jolemai

Dante going up when he kind of sucked already is a kick in the teeth. He really needs better rules.

But i find it interesting that we were the only army not to get a desinger/tournament person comment during our faction focus. And Mephiston had a rubbish primaris update, most characters got -something- special in addition to the generic +1A and +1W.

These days i do tend to think GW aren't particularly keen on BA, they don't have anyone internally championing them essentially.

 

Mephston points going up so much seems equally dumb as characters in his price range normally went up around 10...

 

oh well, overall I doubt it matters really.

Am I missing something that warrants the points increase for the SG?

 

As noted, nearly every unit in the game went up. 

 

Essentially, you're looking at 1750 points of 8th being 2k of 9th - for the vast majority of armies.  A few were less scathed.  

Had a game against Custodes yesterday, the rules for 9th and especially missions sure seem different and more tactical, which is great. The leaked points changes however are absolutely disastrous. The heavy hitters BA rely on to get things done have all gone up in points, and especially SG hurt the most. They're a unit that's very easy to shift after the first attack and can't take any damage in return...

 

Also, Tactical Marines going up to 15 is...quite unfortunate since they basically require a transport, which incidentally is also getting more expensive. It's as if BA had a big numerical advantage in the past...All of the point changes, none of them I like. Characters especially seem ludicrous now.

 

I don't know which intern they've let loose on the spreadsheets, but overall most changes don't appear sensible.

 

 

As a bit of a brag, a friend of mine got two boxes of Indomitus so I'm looking at 10 assault intercessors, 6 Outriders, a Lieutenant and a Chaplain! Good tidings. At least the Outriders are cheap. :D

Nice to see the Phobos can take the Sanguinary Discipline now, not that he gets in a list before Mephiston or a Libby Dread anyway (unless you’re running a Phobos list)

Pretty sure they could always do that.

 

The PotMS was removed since it's redundant now, so I do hope GW will actually give those vehicle a rule that is worth the points increase.

 

 

Nice to see the Phobos can take the Sanguinary Discipline now, not that he gets in a list before Mephiston or a Libby Dread anyway (unless you’re running a Phobos list)

Pretty sure they could always do that.

The data sheet in Blood of Baal only allowed them to take from the Obscuration discipline.

 

The PotMS was removed since it's redundant now, so I do hope GW will actually give those vehicle a rule that is worth the points increase.

Do any of the Primaris vehicles have it? So I doubt it or something similar will be back.

 

 

Repulsors had it.

 

 

 

Nice to see the Phobos can take the Sanguinary Discipline now, not that he gets in a list before Mephiston or a Libby Dread anyway (unless you’re running a Phobos list)

Pretty sure they could always do that.
The data sheet in Blood of Baal only allowed them to take from the Obscuration discipline.

It was added in the SM summer update along with shock assault and all the other Phobos units. :)

Interesting.  Unless I'm missing it, the rules for storm shields were not updated in the FAQ, but they are updated in the FAQ for the new box.    

 

So that implies that the storm shield rules leaked only applies to the primaris storm shields doesn't it?  Or did I just miss it?

GW is making the kits to order, although it's going to take a couple of month to get them.  I was hoping they would do something like this, but I was also hoping they would release this news the day after the kits were shipped, to screw over all the scalpers.

Interesting.  Unless I'm missing it, the rules for storm shields were not updated in the FAQ, but they are updated in the FAQ for the new box.    

 

So that implies that the storm shield rules leaked only applies to the primaris storm shields doesn't it?  Or did I just miss it?

 

Yeah they said so on FB already as well. Gotta wait for a new Codex if at all.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.