Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else worried about the secondary missions?

 

A guard army seems to be just giving away the kill units, kill vehicles, kill more missions while making the survival missions almost impossible?

As it used to be in 5-7th editions as i remember. That could be made to cease the cognitive dissonance that the rest of the community has because the Guard obtained some strong units and tactics, but in all the 'lore books' AM is just a filler between hordes of enemies of mankind and 'glorious savers of humanity'

Each army picks their own secondary objectives. The idea is that your army was sent to battle because they are good at achieving those secondary objectives. So while you assume your opponent will achieve all their secondary objectives; you should work on achieving the secondary objectives you chose for your army. The other way to score points are the mission’s primary objectives; the direct competition between you and your opponent. Overall, focus on the primary objectives and your secondary objectives.

After watching a few games of 9th I'm fairly certain I won't be playing any matched play games.  Just keeping track of the points seems like a royal PITA. 

 

I tried to keep an open mind on the new overwatch rule but it I'm pretty sure I hate it.

 

BUT looks like it will be pretty fun overall, especially for narrative play.  jmo

Just for fun, how do you think that the Vanquisher will have to be?

 

If it remains the same as now, do you think that it will be viable for the only advantage (against BC) is shooting in melee?

 

Do you think that the Extermiator autocannon is alrwady a choice for the same reason?

 

Thank you all :)

Edited by Phubar

For me the punisher is the big tank winner. Its shots are not variable, its not blast but they are high volume, it fires in close combat. It can move and shoot without suffering -1 to hit. 

 

The ability to protect assets using reserve rule also gives them a chance to be around turn 3+..

If I was offered points increase to 5pts for guardsman I'd bite your hand off! Would be very pleased with that. If anything guard show the problem with low points models as the nuance to adjust is limited, there simply isn't the granularity.

Personally i dont like guardsman at 5 ppm, it is not fluffy :D

I would kept the guardsman 4ppm and added a tax for special/heavy weapons and officiers.

So if you take IS with added firepower and/or buff them with orders they will cost you more than now but if you take them naked and without support they stay cheap and hamless and you can have many of them, as the guard fluff says.

If these are all accurate that could have gone a lot worse. Between these and the changes to detachments I’m sure not touching my Baneblade again though, and our psykers got brutalized.

 

Edit: Transports continuing to go up makes it less and less likely I’ll take mine ever. Transport value in 8th/9th is generally overcosted imo. 75 points for a rhino? 65 for a chimera? Easily 20pts too much.

Edited by Kain Mor
Looks like FAQs and Errata are live. May be more appropriate to start a new thread. Tallarn and Vahallans got FAQ’s, nothing noted for steel legion, Mordian or other regimental doctrines. Pretty disappointing as my Mordians will now need to use CP just to use their innate trait. Might be time for custom doctrines for me, fluff wise I will work out some head canon for the time I get around to playing a game in 9th

MedicM I'm in the same boat

 

It's a toss up between Cadian (boring but decent all around), Vostroyan (still some what thematic since we'll disciplined aim is a thing for us) or Steel legion if I go full mech

 

This is a bigger decision especially if you want to run a single detachment with all your tanks in the same one

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.