Thoughts on Prepping for 9e

[thewarriorhunter]

Agree duz, that a new thread might be warranted, but, last point and then I'm out.

 

My edited post above was unclear, but I was referring to the MoA being what was changed in the supplement errata.

 

The rest of what Alcyon said was correct, and I believe the supplement overrides the other errata so we're good and I'll stop. :D

[Alcyon]

 

Knucklehead rule makers would have been better denying Centurions SftS instead of MoA. Would have ended all the Centurion silliness. 

 

Because with MoA you don't know if you have 1st turn or not and thus your Centurions could be shot off the board if you can't seize initiative? Whereas with SftS you can protect them t1 until they arrive via DS turn 2? I would think the MoA ability is more powerful since they can't move and then charge after coming in from SftS - a 9" charge is hard to make.

[Dracos]

Of course you wouldn't use it with Cents unless you went first. ITC has removed the Seize mechanic so actually you would know which way to go there. Even if you didn't at 16% it's a gamble I would take with Centurions (Aggressors in my case). I'm for hamstringing Cent abuse though. I love my Chapter but Cents MoA or SftS should be a one use per battle imo. MoA might have been rough when it's one unit an opponent can game plan for it. When its 3 or 4 units thats just not right. Aggressors aren't as bad but bad enough that way. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Dracos

[Dracos]

Any more watering down and we'll be the Gray Ravens

Day One FAQ should be interesting

[thewarriorhunter]

There was a lot of discussion on a Discord server about this, as ugly as that wall of text is it's pretty straightforward and really should be two paragraphs.

 

If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base (or hull) without any of those lines passing over or through any part of any terrain feature with this trait.

 

Can you see all of the base/hull of at least one model in the unit you are attacking? If yes nothing happens, if no subtract one from the hit roll.

 

Models that are on or within an Area Terrain feature with this trait do not suffer this penalty if the only terrain feature these lines pass over or through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is on or within.

 

Is the attacking unit in a terrain feature that has the Dense Cover mechanic? If so they don't suffer the penalty when shooting out of it.

 

Models within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature with this trait do not suffer this penalty if they only terrain feature these lines pass over or through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is within 3" of. The height of a terrain feature is measured from the highest point on that terrain feature.

 

Are the attacking models within 3" of the terrain feature and no other terrain is in play? If yes then nothing happens, if no subtract one from the hit roll.

 

I hate how convoluted the writing is but I see where they are trying to get with closing as many gaps as possible. The bullet points help to clarify some of what I typed up as well.

 

[Alcyon]

Yeah, how are they going to represent our CT? There's a cap on -1 to hit as noted in the T'au Empire faction focus, so it's possible we'd get -1 to hit even while outside cover. But that seems very strong and they nerfed it in 8th. And then they can't exactly make it +1 to cover saves because we already get a 2+ in cover, and camo cloaks would be a 1+ or made useless.

[Dracos]

Slightly bored after doing some painting on my 2nd unit of Inceptors today. Decided to map out what it would take to block out an opponents reserves on the new table size. Keep in mind my graphics are crude but I thought the positioning might stimulate ideas how to counter a opponent who is making heavy use of Strategic Reserves as we move into 9e.

Your looking at my dining table mapped out to represent just over half of a gaming table. Don't judge

Brown lines mark the table half, your 10 inch deployment zone, and the 24" of midfield.

Red lines mark angles and distances. 9 inches for the Eliminators, 12 inches for Infiltrators and the Phobos Captain.

You begin by using the top right hand corner as the anchor or this formation. More than once I've used Deep Strike in a corner to insert a unit when an opponent wasn't careful about placement. In this case measure 6 inches down and over from the corner and your covered. I spaced the other two models by using the bases as a measure.

Next the Infiltrators are 8 inches from the right hand table edge smack dab in center of the midfield. Again, I used the models base as my method for spacing. They could have been slightly tighter but then you would have to push the Phobos Captain or Lieutenant closer to the edge of the deployment zone. Which leads me to a last point.

This is all laboratory planet bowling ball ... but ... it's a foundation to work from when your facing , oh I don't know say GSC, or Raven Guard . It's something that needs to be adjusted for opponent Faction, Mission, etc. I was actually thinking a Sentry Gun, TFC or Firestrike Servo-turret with their footprints would be good reserve blockers also. I prefer infantry especially Phobos A) I prefer infantry period, and I have some shenanigans planned for the Phobos Keyword, but that's for another post.

Hope this gives my Ravenspire Brother's some inspiration ... and if it does share. We all need to help each other as 9e rolls out.

PS: Looking at a deeper plan based on this foundation, but with the idea of trying to force the opponent into a really bad set of kill zones.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Dracos

[Jaipii]

Hi!

 

Do you think you might be using the new Chapter Litany we got from the Psychic Awakening (every Raven Guard Chaplain knows it in addition to normal litanies) as we have been now revealed that in the 9e FLY units can no longer fall back and shoot?

 

I could imagine using this new litany with a MoS Chaplain to move my Inceptors out of combat to acquire new targets. Also do you read the litany so that 1) one unit can fall back and shoot. 2) ADDITIONALY if the unit can fly it can also charge? Or is it either or? The wording isn't as clear as it could be.

 

Link to the "Swift as Raven" -litany

https://amp.reddit.com/r/Raptors40k/comments/e3rypy/new_raven_guard_chapter_litany/

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I mean honestly it is a niche ability.

 

It is stronger for things like Hell Blasters, Dev Cents, or possibly the new eradicators who are assaulted and survive.

 

This ability was intended for things like assault marines and vanguard vets.

 

Normally it would say -also- to give both abilities, so the intention originally was just to give units with the ability with fly the ability to also charge. Since fly could fall back and shoot anyways.

 

On a personal note, I think if you are burning a CP just to gain fall back and shoot for inceptors, you are wasting the CP and the strength of a Master of Sanct.

 

But do I think it gives them the ability to shoot? Sure. But we won't know until day 1 FAQ.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Dont-Be-Haten

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

I think the new litany would work well on a jump pack chaplain, but it just doesn't seem worth burning a CP to do. If the chaplain is trying to keep up with Jump troops it makes sense, but I wouldn't use Master of Sanctity to get it.

[jpwyrm]

Also, False Flight exist for such a "limited" use and you don't need the chaplain to stick around.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

Looks like Unit coherency cuts down on deep strike denial shenanigans. You can still do the line with 5 man or smaller units, but if you're doing more than 5 models you have to maintain coherency with 2 or more models. horizontal coherency is 2" vertical is now 5".

[thewarriorhunter]

The News thread has a great picture showing what a stretched unit has to look like now:

 

 

Also, Eradicators look so tasty. If you can move them up the board early they will roast armor, but I can also see a point for reserving them and having them deploy in a gap close to armor and roasting it.

 

[duz_]

Key piece of information they missed on coherency though was the coherency test

 

Once you are out of coherency you have to keep removing models until your back in coherency so in the above scenario you take our 1 model its going to be brutal depending when the check is done...

 

 

Edit

By the wording of the coherency check rule sounds like its done after morale checks :o

Edited June 29, 2020 by duz_

[thewarriorhunter]

Yes, also we're still missing all the rules and I'm sure there's other elements to making this a big change.

 

Example (I'd like to see): Ork boys stretched out, I charge into the middle and start killing things. If casualties have to be taken from models 'within engagement range' and I can open up a hole, then consolidate into that hole and split the unit, that means one side of that is likely to be removed for being out of coherency.

 

Is that likely to happen a lot? Probably not. But when it does it will be very cool.

[ShinyRhino]

Key piece of information they missed on coherency though was the coherency test

 

Once you are out of coherency you have to keep removing models until your back in coherency so in the above scenario you take our 1 model its going to be brutal depending when the check is done...

 

 

Edit

By the wording of the coherency check rule sounds like its done after morale checks :o

This is purely to keep stationary units from having to follow the Coherency rule, which only triggers after a Move.

[WAR]

Yes, also we're still missing all the rules and I'm sure there's other elements to making this a big change.

 

Example (I'd like to see): Ork boys stretched out, I charge into the middle and start killing things. If casualties have to be taken from models 'within engagement range' and I can open up a hole, then consolidate into that hole and split the unit, that means one side of that is likely to be removed for being out of coherency.

 

Is that likely to happen a lot? Probably not. But when it does it will be very cool.

 

lol I just envisioned my groups Ork player rage quit if that happened to him. 

[Dracos]

You're evil War ;)

 

Two rows of spaced in off set flipping triangles and their safe. It doesn't eliminate congo lines just requires it to be a double row so half as long. Which looks and feels less gamey that those goofy across the table single line "screens" that removed models 24 inches away from the shooting unit on the opposite end.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Couldn't you just corale the unit in a circle? And you would still maintain a dominant foot print.

[thewarriorhunter]

If the unit is large enough, once a point in the circle breaks down it's possible for it to just be a curved line and you start dropping units because each model is not coherent with two other models.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Gonna be a hokey edition.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

Gonna be a hokey edition.

Eh. When was the last time you saw military formations line up like that? It's literally never done except for patrols through dense woods and only close enough to have visual with the guy on the left and right. I think that GW is pushing us towards movement trays, that and the fact that the conga line is the stupidest thing that shouldn't work but does, because of rules jank. I'm glad they're nerfing that.

 

Additionally it prevents deepstrike line jank. Now you can't deep strike a unit and stretch them along a table edge to block off outflank. I think this will encourage more tactical thinking.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

 

Gonna be a hokey edition.

Eh. When was the last time you saw military formations line up like that? It's literally never done except for patrols through dense woods and only close enough to have visual with the guy on the left and right. I think that GW is pushing us towards movement trays, that and the fact that the conga line is the stupidest thing that shouldn't work but does, because of rules jank. I'm glad they're nerfing that.

 

Additionally it prevents deepstrike line jank. Now you can't deep strike a unit and stretch them along a table edge to block off outflank. I think this will encourage more tactical thinking.

I mean, I hope you don't use the wall of martyrs or trenches on your boards.

 

Thematically you can't set up the whole unit along it now.

 

I play bugs, and tau as well. Some of my formations can't be used now, last thing I want is a blob of 30 to die because I lose 5 models.

 

I'll adjust, movement phases are just going to be so much longer making sure I don't give up free kills. These first few games are going to suck.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Dont-Be-Haten

[ShinyRhino]

I'll adjust, movement phases are just going to be so much longer making sure I don't give up free kills. These first few games are going to suck.

It's not the movement phase you have to worry about. It's where you take your casualties from that matters.

 

It only affects units of 6+ models, so most Marine armies won't care anyways.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

I'll adjust, movement phases are just going to be so much longer making sure I don't give up free kills. These first few games are going to suck.

It's not the movement phase you have to worry about. It's where you take your casualties from that matters.

 

It only affects units of 6+ models, so most Marine armies won't care anyways.

But the movement phase does matter, because if I don't play MSU marines, especially in my narrative games where I play full tactical squads, or with my horde armies, I obviously don't want to put my units in a predicament that will allow free kills because they aren't in coherency.

 

Unfortunately I run a variety of formations that are no longer safe to run with these rules changes. Picking up casualties strategically will also be something that will make things more difficult at first also.