GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).
GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.
Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.
An interesting theory, but they don't playtest in a vacuum and it seems they're starting to listen to the playtesters a lot more.
Plus I did see someone put forth the idea that they might use the app to collect data on the lists people are building and use that to help spot units that are rarely, if ever, being played.
Won't that plan go all wrong when everyone starts just theorycrafting lists in the app? I've got tons of lists in battlescribe that I've never played, some with models and armies I don't even have.
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And even if intercessors have to start paying for their weapons how do we know that cultists won't? Why should we assume that autoguns are still free if bolt rifles suddenly have a price?
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And even if intercessors have to start paying for their weapons how do we know that cultists won't? Why should we assume that autoguns are still free if bolt rifles suddenly have a price?
i seriously doubt also that any boltgun is costing 5 pts for that is what you'd assume the intercissor would get at a free autogun level, to reach about the same hike in price.
and even then the intercissor would still be superior to the cultists in any way and form. Everything less and you end up with another "relative" buff for intercissors.
"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."
I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.
So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
Yes. I think people like round numbers. 1500 as the standard lasted for a long long time and I think 2000 will last a long time as well. It's all just psychology, but I think it'll make the 2000 as a standard full sized game stick even with a few less models. I don't think we'll see too many events going to 2250. 8th has had issues with games at events finishing in a timely manner and I don't think we'll see any resistance to a lower model count 2000 points.
Sadly I think there will be a fair amount of resistance as folk have armies that fit that point level, and dropping it means having to leave something out and unless it's just a 'oh I guess i'll waste may last points on these mooks' unit people won't want to loose them (or drop the sizes of several units to let them keep everything)
after all there were plenty of complaints about (tournament) games not finishing, but very few tournament player and organisers actually dropped down and played games at lower point levels despite this (and i'm sure the tournaments asked their player base informally if lower points levels would be acceptable as it would have made event running much easier but they didn't do it because the players didn't want it)
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm saying that things are actually different now than they were in the past...
*looks at current state of 8th*
Are they though?
8th took steps to actively try and balance the game more proactively as well as work to correct major rule loopholes. That's a massive change over Kirby's GW era.
And 9th has ramped up playtesting and seems like it's going to be starting in an even better place than 8th did.
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And even if intercessors have to start paying for their weapons how do we know that cultists won't? Why should we assume that autoguns are still free if bolt rifles suddenly have a price?
i seriously doubt also that any boltgun is costing 5 pts for that is what you'd assume the intercissor would get at a free autogun level, to reach about the same hike in price.
and even then the intercissor would still be superior to the cultists in any way and form. Everything less and you end up with another "relative" buff for intercissors.
Because you know which army needs buffs you know just the army with in excess of an avarage 60% Win rate against all other codex's
I like that the game size is right on the mission page. Eternal War - Strike Force is right on The Four Pillars.
My hope is that every scenario was actually tested at the size indicated. Sometimes scenarios just don't work well for smaller games and seeing them actually consider the game size in scenario design is a hopeful sign that they will actually work for the size they say they are for.
Gimgamgoo wrote: Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
Stop using logic. That is verboten!
The biggest thing that changes is that current point granularity is a bit small on the low end. THe meaningful distinction between a grot, a brimstone horror, a guardsman and a cultist is not really there, and that's caused major issues in 8th with units on the low end.
Raising points across the board adds granularity to the point scale.
Therion wrote: Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.
I think GW said in one of the recent Q&As that they wanted more options for table sizes as not everyone has a 6x4 table at home. 3x5 is quite a common size for dining tables.
I feel like Zion has a secret life goal to respond to literally every other post in this thread, no matter how pedantic. Just so I can scroll through 50% more bickering to check the news and developments.
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increases than the troops choices from their Chaos Worshipping brethren.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Red Corsair wrote: I feel like Zion has a secret life goal to respond to literally every other post in this thread, no matter how pedantic. Just so I can scroll through 50% more bickering to check the news and developments.
*hits Filter Thread and checks his page count*
I'm building a Land Raider Crusader and mostly replying while parts dry at the moment.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Therion wrote: Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.
Table size is relative to points level, so it's likely a 1k mission.
The mission tells you the size right on it. Strike Force. That's 2k. 12 command points.
2k on a 4x4? The game must be getting a fair bit smaller than i thought.
Personally I think this can sink the whole edition. Less room for maneouvres and flanks means it’s a straight up push all in to the middle from both sides. The game area should be bigger, not smaller.
Therion wrote: Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.
It specifically doesn't state a size, it follow the AoS style where everything ia measured from the center, so it can theoretically be played on almost any size of table.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Agree with all of this.
Early 9th certainly looks like Marines will still be army to beat to break the meta.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Yup. "hey folks we definitely want to make sure there isn't just one best faction when things start out"
*Releases MASSIVE, CRAZY MARINE BUFFS a couple months before new edition, shattering years of a relatively balanced competitive meta*
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Yup. "hey folks we definitely want to make sure there isn't just one best faction when things start out"
*Releases MASSIVE, CRAZY MARINE BUFFS a couple months before new edition, shattering years of a relatively balanced competitive meta*
Don't forget all the new models. I'm sure their rules won't be remotely OP.
Voss wrote: Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.
Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.
Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.
I doubt it's global. Some units are already over costed. If they increase the price of the marine super heavys any more they might as well stop making rules for them in 40k and only sell them for hh.
They were pretty explicit in the stream about changing the points for everything. They mentioned that the current points may have suited 8th, but they don't suit 9th.
Will that mean every single thing got it's points adjusted? Probably not, but the vast, vast majority will.
Just because they change points for everything doesn\t mean everything goes up and it most definitely don't mean everything goes up same. The stuff that was junk either needs serious help in rules or by minimum stay same points(While others go up) or even go down. Yes even if other stuff goes up there's stuff that still deserves point drops. Stompa, warhound, warlord, reaver to name some extreme ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: GW point increase is allready flawed. If you want to make a general point increase to make games "smaller" and have more room on the low cost units the increase should be the same in % for every unit.
Then after that you can start costing things individually and adjusting based in performance, of course, but thats a totally different beast.
And you know they didn't basically do that...how? After all if we see every unit go up equally then we know they weren't even trying to balance the points.
Therion wrote: Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.
Table size is relative to points level, so it's likely a 1k mission.
The mission tells you the size right on it. Strike Force. That's 2k. 12 command points.
2k on a 4x4? The game must be getting a fair bit smaller than i thought.
Personally I think this can sink the whole edition. Less room for maneouvres and flanks means it’s a straight up push all in to the middle from both sides. The game area should be bigger, not smaller.
The map shown for the example mission doesn't specify a table size though, all measurments on it are relative to the centre of the table. Exactly like they did in 8th in fact, where all measurments on the deployment maps were either relative to the centre, board edge or each other, but never stipulated a table size, though the matched play rules did suggest that you play on a 6x4 at 2K.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Yup. "hey folks we definitely want to make sure there isn't just one best faction when things start out"
*Releases MASSIVE, CRAZY MARINE BUFFS a couple months before new edition, shattering years of a relatively balanced competitive meta*
Don't forget all the new models. I'm sure their rules won't be remotely OP.
You mean like the new CSM were, or Howling Banshees?
Gimgamgoo wrote: Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
Just one issue. GW doesn't control that value. Players do. Which of course leads to major issue because playerds are quite likely to up to 2500 or 3000 or whatever gives about same models they got before. And then complain "40k armies cost so many $$$ it's ridiculous!" forgetting they are to blame as well. They did this already. Them doing it again wouldn't even be surprise.
What GW can do is change point costs of units and HOPE players don't up the game size in response...AGAIN.
ClockworkZion wrote: 10:1 people would still just play larger sized games no matter what GW said the points ceiling is, so they tried to account for that and said 3k is the new 2k pre-emptively.
They said no such thing(unless I missed something). They said they want model count go down. The chart also indicates 3k is not the default for GW(default isn't biggest one for GW)
there was just no room left to balance anything on the lower end
but my fear is that a lot of people are now going to aim for 3k points instead of 2k.
We have seen something similar at the beginning of 8th were all those voices called for 2k standard game size because after the point increase for vehicles they cannot get their collection on the table at lower points.
and this time there will also be people who say that 12CP is not enough and 3k is the minimum for a good game
so I won't be suprised if ITC starts with 3000 point tournaments as the new standard
Virules wrote: Unless somehow the community decides to jump to 2500 or 3000 point games as a result, I admit I am pretty bummed about this change. I really enjoyed the points costs getting lowered and having more diversity in the amount and variety of models in my army and my opponent's army. I appreciate that they want to make the game faster but I was really hoping they could do that through rules changes rather than just be forcing people to bring less models.
I am also skeptical that they will get the granularity right, if the Cultist versus Intercessor comparison is anything to go by....those changes seem really off, at least for 8th, to the detriment of the Chaos player.
Another effect constantly increasing model count is that unless you keep upping board(and who has 8'x6' board?) it keeps reducing importance of deployment and manouvering. Aka reduces strategy from game.
Galas wrote: GW point increase is allready flawed. If you want to make a general point increase to make games "smaller" and have more room on the low cost units the increase should be the same in % for every unit.
Then after that you can start costing things individually and adjusting based in performance, of course, but thats a totally different beast.
And you know they didn't basically do that...how? After all if we see every unit go up equally then we know they weren't even trying to balance the points.
It doesn't look good when in the one example we have the supreme overtuned troop unit in the game takes a 25% increase and the multi nerfed legion trait exempt unit which by it's very nature is catching further core mechanic nerfs eats a 50% increase.
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And even if intercessors have to start paying for their weapons how do we know that cultists won't? Why should we assume that autoguns are still free if bolt rifles suddenly have a price?
Well if bolt gun costs 4 pts and autogun 1 the point gap is quite different still.
You don't expect vastly superior boltgun to be same price as autogun do you? Only way that would be is if cost is included in model cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Not to mention missions that are similar to marine favouring ITC...
Well when you have playtesters group who run nova missions that look to be basically ITC missions which are fairly anti horde no surprise.
Can't believe it. GW promised that 40k worked great at every point level, and yet you're telling me I get the same number of CP at 5000pts as I do at 3000? The liars.
Sorry, my tired brain thought we could use a slight bit of levity from the legitimate worries people are having.
Virules wrote: Unless somehow the community decides to jump to 2500 or 3000 point games as a result, I admit I am pretty bummed about this change. I really enjoyed the points costs getting lowered and having more diversity in the amount and variety of models in my army and my opponent's army. I appreciate that they want to make the game faster but I was really hoping they could do that through rules changes rather than just be forcing people to bring less models.
I am also skeptical that they will get the granularity right, if the Cultist versus Intercessor comparison is anything to go by....those changes seem really off, at least for 8th, to the detriment of the Chaos player.
Another effect constantly increasing model count is that unless you keep upping board(and who has 8'x6' board?) it keeps reducing importance of deployment and manouvering. Aka reduces strategy from game.
A typical table tennis / ping pong table is 9'x5' and works great for 40K.
Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
ClockworkZion wrote: 10:1 people would still just play larger sized games no matter what GW said the points ceiling is, so they tried to account for that and said 3k is the new 2k pre-emptively.
They said no such thing(unless I missed something). They said they want model count go down. The chart also indicates 3k is not the default for GW(default isn't biggest one for GW)
They didn't say it, but with the points changes, that's how the community will take it since it's hard to get people to leave toys on the shelf.
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And if they had shown the full dataslate for both units with points as a actual example of how two specific sample units of the hundreds in the game work in the new system the preview would actualy be useful and meaningful.
Partial information asks more questions than it answers.
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And if they had shown the full dataslate for both units with points as a actual example of how two specific sample units of the hundreds in the game work in the new system the preview would actualy be useful and meaningful.
Partial information asks more questions than it answers.
So far the information provided is the best factions best or second best troops choice just took a 17% increase in points while cultists the weaker version of guardsmen just took a 50% increase.
Either way partial information does NOT make those points increases look like they are helping improve balance in the game.
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And if they had shown the full dataslate for both units with points as a actual example of how two specific sample units of the hundreds in the game work in the new system the preview would actualy be useful and meaningful.
Partial information asks more questions than it answers.
So far the information provided is the best factions best or second best troops choice just took a 17% increase in points while cultists the weaker version of guardsmen just took a 50% increase.
Either way partial information does NOT make those points increases look like they are helping improve balance in the game.
No it doesn't but the full dataslate and pts cost would at least give us answers to relevant questions like wargear costs....
Audustum wrote: As Custodes, I fear what across the board points increases will do to my army.
...Make it even cheaper to buy and collect a full army?
Seriously, how is this a downside to literally anybody? Does anyone ENJOY spending 2 hours painting a 4-point horde troop model?
Oh, right, people love it when you do that. What they want is to field 10 space marines and make pew pew noises shooting your horde models off the table.
Virules wrote: Unless somehow the community decides to jump to 2500 or 3000 point games as a result, I admit I am pretty bummed about this change. I really enjoyed the points costs getting lowered and having more diversity in the amount and variety of models in my army and my opponent's army. I appreciate that they want to make the game faster but I was really hoping they could do that through rules changes rather than just be forcing people to bring less models.
I am also skeptical that they will get the granularity right, if the Cultist versus Intercessor comparison is anything to go by....those changes seem really off, at least for 8th, to the detriment of the Chaos player.
Another effect constantly increasing model count is that unless you keep upping board(and who has 8'x6' board?) it keeps reducing importance of deployment and manouvering. Aka reduces strategy from game.
Audustum wrote: As Custodes, I fear what across the board points increases will do to my army.
...Make it even cheaper to buy and collect a full army?
Seriously, how is this a downside to literally anybody? Does anyone ENJOY spending 2 hours painting a 4-point horde troop model?
Oh, right, people love it when you do that. What they want is to field 10 space marines and make pew pew noises shooting your horde models off the table.
If people has toys A, B, C and D they want to use them in all of their games instead of using A, B and D in one, B, C and D in other. I mean I don't understand it but I'm in the minority.
Aaranis wrote: Yeah on the topic of smaller games, I feel like people are quickly going to just amp up the "normal" game size from 2000 to 3000 or something and it won't help at all. People generally just want to play a lot of their collection and not feel limited.
Which is sad because I'm just hoping this'll make AdMech armies cheaper in relation to the abysmal €/pts cost of today where a Skorpius is 65€ for 70-80ish pts
With points hikes I could see 2k armies totalling up closer to 3k leading to 3k being the new large game standard for bringing all your toys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote: Warp Charge is already in the game, it's the target roll you need to pass.
Ah, okay. I was having 7th edition flashbacks.
As a custodes player, this makes me a little sad. I'm already pretty pointed out of 500 point games, is a bummer if I end up out of 1000 point games too cause I can't fit a coherent force in one.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
Yup. "hey folks we definitely want to make sure there isn't just one best faction when things start out"
*Releases MASSIVE, CRAZY MARINE BUFFS a couple months before new edition, shattering years of a relatively balanced competitive meta*
Don't forget all the new models. I'm sure their rules won't be remotely OP.
You mean like the new CSM were, or Howling Banshees?
Those weren't new units, they were updated kits for old units. And they didn't have the word PRIMARIS associated with them.
tneva82 wrote:Well if bolt gun costs 4 pts and autogun 1 the point gap is quite different still.
You don't expect vastly superior boltgun to be same price as autogun do you? Only way that would be is if cost is included in model cost.
You mean like they are now? And most likely will be in 9th? I don't think previously free weapons are going to start costing points.
The 3000 point bracket one has 3 missions rather than the 6 at 2000 and I suspect that those three are a lot less rigorously playtested (being the Apocalypse equivalent).
I very much doubt the major tourney organizers will be leaving the 2K missions they spent so much time playtesting behind.
Aaranis wrote: Yeah on the topic of smaller games, I feel like people are quickly going to just amp up the "normal" game size from 2000 to 3000 or something and it won't help at all. People generally just want to play a lot of their collection and not feel limited.
Which is sad because I'm just hoping this'll make AdMech armies cheaper in relation to the abysmal €/pts cost of today where a Skorpius is 65€ for 70-80ish pts
With points hikes I could see 2k armies totalling up closer to 3k leading to 3k being the new large game standard for bringing all your toys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote: Warp Charge is already in the game, it's the target roll you need to pass.
Ah, okay. I was having 7th edition flashbacks.
As a custodes player, this makes me a little sad. I'm already pretty pointed out of 500 point games, is a bummer if I end up out of 1000 point games too cause I can't fit a coherent force in one.
It is quite possible since 40k has somewhere near 1000 data sheets, that the Custodes army may not increase that much point wise. If their points don't increase much (They really, really shouldn't). They will be facing lighter opposition in the opposing force, fewer guns pointing at them, etc.
-As pointed out table size isn't actually being changed from this. It's being opened up to be whatever size you want as long as you can meet the deployment/objective minimums. Similar to AoS which is still on a 6x4.
-The 2k "change" in 8th was more of a UK/Europe issue. The US was 1850/2k already. But even then it was only a 150pt bump. Given that they aren't giving us increments for CP at different point levels actually points to a steady setting of 2k.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
lord_blackfang wrote: The lack of a 1500 pt tier is undoubtedly a conscious effort to dissuade sub-2k games.
Yeah that is weird how its not linear.
It should be going up in increments of 500, but it starts jumping by 1000 past the 500 point tier.
I guess 1500 points gives you 6CP then, instead of 9? I hope this doesn't mean that you technically aren't allowed to play games from 1001-1999 points, which would just be weird design.
It clearly goes up by 3CP per 500pts in the chart shown...
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
And if they had shown the full dataslate for both units with points as a actual example of how two specific sample units of the hundreds in the game work in the new system the preview would actualy be useful and meaningful.
Partial information asks more questions than it answers.
So far the information provided is the best factions best or second best troops choice just took a 17% increase in points while cultists the weaker version of guardsmen just took a 50% increase.
Either way partial information does NOT make those points increases look like they are helping improve balance in the game.
Yes it does. Units at the bottom end of the points pool were too cheap for the number of attacks and wounds they provided, and a lot of elite units simply weren't worth the points they cost in terms of attacks and wounds. That's been a huge problem since the beginning of 8th. A universally equal points increase would have made no sense and changed nothing- it would have kept the same crappy exterior and interior balance problems of a lot of armies.
Sit down and work out the math and try it out on the table first. Don't get caught up in the percentages in a vacuum.
We'll have to wait to see what all changes there are to the rules and points as a whole to know what's going to be overcosted and what's not. If the past is any indication, it's likely we'll have a wonky stilted metagame with a good chunk of clearly under/over costed units to start out with in some form or another, GW has never once managed to avoid that, but let's see where those problems actually are first.
Voss wrote: Oh, yeah, I don't doubt cost problems. But raising the floor has been needed since Index 1. There just wasn't room to move.
Aye , allbeit if one Elie unit didn't need a "relative" buff then it was intercissors.
Heck fwiw we could've doubled all points and i'd really liked to have a better Look at the Design and Development process but he , one can dream right?
Aaranis wrote: Then you wouldn't gain the increased granularity in point balance between units, the right thing to do is to increase the scale to allow for more subtle changes. There was a huge mess on the forum where people wanted Guardsmen to go from 4 to 5 pts, but then that would mean Veterans would have to go from 5 to 6, and then why bother using a Veteran when x unit is already 6 pts... And so forth. If they multiply all values by two we can have 8 pts Guardsmen that go up to 9 pts, while the Veteran stays at 10 or 11. Something like that.
Another solution is making you buy guardsmen by pack of two, three, or even 5. That's how Warmachine does it. It allows much much smaller point values while keeping some granularity.
Aaranis wrote: Then you wouldn't gain the increased granularity in point balance between units, the right thing to do is to increase the scale to allow for more subtle changes. There was a huge mess on the forum where people wanted Guardsmen to go from 4 to 5 pts, but then that would mean Veterans would have to go from 5 to 6, and then why bother using a Veteran when x unit is already 6 pts... And so forth. If they multiply all values by two we can have 8 pts Guardsmen that go up to 9 pts, while the Veteran stays at 10 or 11. Something like that.
Another solution is making you buy guardsmen by pack of two, three, or even 5. That's how Warmachine does it. It allows much much smaller point values while keeping some granularity.
Emulating Warmachine isn't really a recipe for broading the appeal (and success) of your wargame though.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.
Audustum wrote: As Custodes, I fear what across the board points increases will do to my army.
...Make it even cheaper to buy and collect a full army?
Seriously, how is this a downside to literally anybody? Does anyone ENJOY spending 2 hours painting a 4-point horde troop model?
Oh, right, people love it when you do that. What they want is to field 10 space marines and make pew pew noises shooting your horde models off the table.
My troops are like 50 PPM. :(. It's not a question of having all my toys, it's a question of even being able to make a take all comers list at all
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.
There are also 0 Eldarain's who said they do/are.
This entire back and forth stems from me not using the clearest phrasing I could on the points increase sentence and a reading comprehension issue conflating the factions with specific units.
My point:
Codex Space Marines and their overdeveloped subfactions are coming out of this edition change with nothing negatively affecting them (that we've seen) despite being clearly the most powerful armies currently.
Everything that is currently being relied on to combat them is taking hits.
And yes their superior troop unit is taking a smaller price increase than their nemesis' superior troop unit (despite the Intercessors being one of the best units in the game currently troop or otherwise)
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.
Not really...
Okay, so, savvy, what DOES a unit of intercessors and cultists do in this, the current end of 8th meta, do?
For a certain build of marines, intercessors make up a tough to kill chaff wall. For some builds of chaos, cultists make a large chaff wall. They're pretty comparable here. Iron hands intercessors and abbandon backed cultists often have the same job.
How about kicking out a large plurality of anti infantry firepower? Intercessors in tac doctrine using vet intercessor trait verse cultists using VotlW and maybe even slaanesh double shooting. There's a good comparison there.
The main difference is simply, GW has made intercessors increasingly valuable, and cultists increasingly unvaluable. There was a point that a blob of 30 cultists could and did do anything you wanted 10 intercessors to do, but vastly better. Now it is the reverse.
There really isn't that many roles in the game, there's only a handful that any unit fits in to.
lord_blackfang wrote: The lack of a 1500 pt tier is undoubtedly a conscious effort to dissuade sub-2k games.
Yeah that is weird how its not linear.
It should be going up in increments of 500, but it starts jumping by 1000 past the 500 point tier.
I guess 1500 points gives you 6CP then, instead of 9? I hope this doesn't mean that you technically aren't allowed to play games from 1001-1999 points, which would just be weird design.
It clearly goes up by 3CP per 500pts in the chart shown...
They didn't list it though. They are tiers, after all.
It is true though that you get 3CP for every 500 points. But what about something unusual, such as 750 points or 1850 points?
750 points would give you, what, 4.5 CP? How do you use half a CP?
People are upset about ONLY 12 CP at 2k? I always had to jump through hoops to get that many and I'm extremely happy to now have them without severely restricting my choices.
I'm exited for the new edition. Will it be perfect? No. Will it be better than 8th? Most likely, and I was already relatively happy with 8th.
The way they are talking in the streams makes me believe that they are actually aware of 8th's issues in both competitive and narrativ play so they seem to be on the right track
Ragnar69 wrote: People are upset about ONLY 12 CP at 2k? I always had to jump through hoops to get that many and I'm extremely happy to now have them without severely restricting my choices.
I'm exited for the new edition. Will it be perfect? No. Will it be better than 8th? Most likely, and I was already relatively happy with 8th.
The way they are talking in the streams makes me believe that they are actually aware of 8th's issues in both competitive and narrativ play so they seem to be on the right track
Similar position. My armies over the past year or so have ranged from 5-10 CP. Starting with 12 (and running a single codex) makes me pretty happy.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.
Not really...
Okay, so, savvy, what DOES a unit of intercessors and cultists do in this, the current end of 8th meta, do?
For a certain build of marines, intercessors make up a tough to kill chaff wall. For some builds of chaos, cultists make a large chaff wall. They're pretty comparable here. Iron hands intercessors and abbandon backed cultists often have the same job.
How about kicking out a large plurality of anti infantry firepower? Intercessors in tac doctrine using vet intercessor trait verse cultists using VotlW and maybe even slaanesh double shooting. There's a good comparison there.
The main difference is simply, GW has made intercessors increasingly valuable, and cultists increasingly unvaluable. There was a point that a blob of 30 cultists could and did do anything you wanted 10 intercessors to do, but vastly better. Now it is the reverse.
There really isn't that many roles in the game, there's only a handful that any unit fits in to.
In 8th Cultists largely gained value from being easy to spam for large amounts of CP on the cheap. Everything after that was just a bonus.
In 9th they're still a cheap unit who can be easilly tossed onto objectives to perform actions without investing a large amount of points into them or losing much of your army's damage out put.
An Intercessor Squad not shooting or punching things is a much larger relative chunk of the army not killing things.
That's just an off the top of my head thought though, there may be more going on that we don't know. Like maybe hordes get AoS morale mechanics (+1Ld for every 10 models in a unit).
I'm curious about this channeling thing you can do on objectives. There's clearly more to it, as it talks about active and progressive, and its odd how the rule doesn't explicitly states that you can't do anything while channelling, as you'd think there would be a trade off between getting more VP and being able to do something.
So I have a hypothesis - there's going to be a paragraph in the rule book that explains how this mechanic works. Units that choose to gain VP this way can't do anything, can't move, can't shoot, can't even fight in CC until they are done. An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight.
This would tie in to what they said about needing troops, and give troop units more value than being just a tax unit.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm curious about this channeling thing you can do on objectives. There's clearly more to it, as it talks about active and progressive, and its odd how the rule doesn't explicitly states that you can't do anything while channelling, as you'd think there would be a trade off between getting more VP and being able to do something.
So I have a hypothesis - there's going to be a paragraph in the rule book that explains how this mechanic works. Units that choose to gain VP this way can't do anything, can't move, can't shoot, can't even fight in CC until they are done. An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight.
This would tie in to what they said about needing troops, and give troop units more value than being just a tax unit.
From WHC describing actions:
This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.
If you're performing an action you can't shoot (and likely can't charge) that turn. In the case of psykers, they cast a psychic power for VP instead of one of their normal powers.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm curious about this channeling thing you can do on objectives. There's clearly more to it, as it talks about active and progressive, and its odd how the rule doesn't explicitly states that you can't do anything while channelling, as you'd think there would be a trade off between getting more VP and being able to do something.
So I have a hypothesis - there's going to be a paragraph in the rule book that explains how this mechanic works. Units that choose to gain VP this way can't do anything, can't move, can't shoot, can't even fight in CC until they are done. An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight.
This would tie in to what they said about needing troops, and give troop units more value than being just a tax unit.
From WHC describing actions:
This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.
If you're performing an action you can't shoot (and likely can't charge) that turn. In the case of psykers, they cast a psychic power for VP instead of one of their normal powers.
Interesting, I missed that.
We'll see if troops get special treatment.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: . An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight.
.
That would make sense in the crunch but be nonsense in the fluff.
Why would a less trained, basic infantry unit be more capable of performing actions while remaining battle operative than better trained and equipped elite units?
I hope they don't pull something like that. Total immersion breaker.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Can't believe it. GW promised that 40k worked great at every point level, and yet you're telling me I get the same number of CP at 5000pts as I do at 3000? The liars.
Sorry, my tired brain thought we could use a slight bit of levity from the legitimate worries people are having.
well technically at 5k you might have less as you'll have to spend CP unlocking detachments for your extra units compared to 3k XD
CthuluIsSpy wrote: . An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight. .
That would make sense in the crunch but be nonsense in the fluff. Why would a less trained, basic infantry unit be more capable of performing actions while remaining battle operative than better trained and equipped elite units? I hope they don't pull something like that. Total immersion breaker.
More immersion breaking than a tank or a unit of terminators being unable to control an objective, because a grot is next to them? Because that's basically what objective secured is.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: . An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight.
.
That would make sense in the crunch but be nonsense in the fluff.
Why would a less trained, basic infantry unit be more capable of performing actions while remaining battle operative than better trained and equipped elite units?
I hope they don't pull something like that. Total immersion breaker.
More immersion breaking than a tank or a unit of terminators being unable to control an objective, because a grot is next to them?
Because that's basically what objective secured is.
And I would argue on that inconsistency, saying different units should have values per model when it comes to claiming an objective.
The pts thing is interesting. Because bodies on the ground with these actions etc might be worth a lot tactically.
Also what if a Chaos marine only goes up to say 12 or even stays at 11? He now costs twice as much as a cultist and about half as much as an intercessor.
This is the kinda balance shift i think we'll see, more drastic pts changes on some units than in others. Currently in 8th a CSM isnt worth the 3ish cultists you can get for him and the mere 6pt jump for loyalist marines get to make em an intercessor is equally meh on the other end.
Will of course be a complete shambles if (or is it when) they get it wrong because there will be points gaps in units the likes of which we might not have seen before. The cultist may have gone up more as a % than the intercessor but their points gap has actually increased, this is probably a tame example of whats to come.
I was hoping hordes would get a point discount if you take them in full sized units, like age of sigmar where units have a base cost and if taken at max size they get a discount to encourage you taking them in fluffy hordes, instead of MSU.
Daemonettes for example are 11pts each, but if you take 30 in a single unit , the unit only costs 300pts which is a 9% discount
Rydria wrote: I was hoping hordes would get a point discount if you take them in full sized units, like age of sigmar where units have a base cost and if taken at max size they get a discount to encourage you taking them in fluffy hordes, instead of MSU
Especially considering the max hits for blasts changes.
Rydria wrote: I was hoping hordes would get a point discount if you take them in full sized units, like age of sigmar where units have a base cost and if taken at max size they get a discount to encourage you taking them in fluffy hordes, instead of MSU.
Daemonettes for example are 11pts each, but if you take 30 in a single unit , the unit only costs 300pts which is a 9% discount
Not every single unit in AoS gets discounts. Only certain Battleline units get those discounts.
There is still a bit of room for that to come to pass, but even then I wouldn't say the "fluffy hordes" bit is. I mean, there's a discount for Sequitors...an 'elite' faction choice.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.
Not really...
Okay, so, savvy, what DOES a unit of intercessors and cultists do in this, the current end of 8th meta, do?
For a certain build of marines, intercessors make up a tough to kill chaff wall. For some builds of chaos, cultists make a large chaff wall. They're pretty comparable here. Iron hands intercessors and abbandon backed cultists often have the same job.
How about kicking out a large plurality of anti infantry firepower? Intercessors in tac doctrine using vet intercessor trait verse cultists using VotlW and maybe even slaanesh double shooting. There's a good comparison there.
The main difference is simply, GW has made intercessors increasingly valuable, and cultists increasingly unvaluable. There was a point that a blob of 30 cultists could and did do anything you wanted 10 intercessors to do, but vastly better. Now it is the reverse.
There really isn't that many roles in the game, there's only a handful that any unit fits in to.
In 8th Cultists largely gained value from being easy to spam for large amounts of CP on the cheap. Everything after that was just a bonus.
In 9th they're still a cheap unit who can be easilly tossed onto objectives to perform actions without investing a large amount of points into them or losing much of your army's damage out put.
An Intercessor Squad not shooting or punching things is a much larger relative chunk of the army not killing things.
That's just an off the top of my head thought though, there may be more going on that we don't know. Like maybe hordes get AoS morale mechanics (+1Ld for every 10 models in a unit).
I'm sorry, but this isn't correct. Cultists when they were used competitively made up a core part of the offensive force of a chaos army. 30 cultists rapid firing with plus 1 to hit, plus 1 to wound, full to hit rerolls, was a very strong combination for much of 8th edition and featured in a few top 8 chaos lists. Cultists were then nerfed and no longer had the same efficiency for points and filtered out. They aren't notably better than other choices (like nurglings) for battalion filler. If you are spamming cultists, you are probably still trying to make the abaddon blob work, which is still fairly good, just not tope tables good. Or just making a bad list.
Intercessors were, at one point, completely unused for anything competitive. They were, flatly, bad at the start of 8th, and GW had to repeatedly buff them. All those buffs have now, of course, compounded to where intercessors are probably really too good for their points when they can stack all of them. But the issue is, they're not great without those stacked buffs, which is a bit of a quandry in how to balance then because not even all space marines take full buff advantage.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.
Okay, so, savvy, what DOES a unit of intercessors and cultists do in this, the current end of 8th meta, do?
For a certain build of marines, intercessors make up a tough to kill chaff wall. For some builds of chaos, cultists make a large chaff wall. They're pretty comparable here. Iron hands intercessors and abbandon backed cultists often have the same job.
How about kicking out a large plurality of anti infantry firepower? Intercessors in tac doctrine using vet intercessor trait verse cultists using VotlW and maybe even slaanesh double shooting. There's a good comparison there.
The main difference is simply, GW has made intercessors increasingly valuable, and cultists increasingly unvaluable. There was a point that a blob of 30 cultists could and did do anything you wanted 10 intercessors to do, but vastly better. Now it is the reverse.
There really isn't that many roles in the game, there's only a handful that any unit fits in to.
In 8th Cultists largely gained value from being easy to spam for large amounts of CP on the cheap. Everything after that was just a bonus.
In 9th they're still a cheap unit who can be easilly tossed onto objectives to perform actions without investing a large amount of points into them or losing much of your army's damage out put.
An Intercessor Squad not shooting or punching things is a much larger relative chunk of the army not killing things.
That's just an off the top of my head thought though, there may be more going on that we don't know. Like maybe hordes get AoS morale mechanics (+1Ld for every 10 models in a unit).
I'm sorry, but this isn't correct. Cultists when they were used competitively made up a core part of the offensive force of a chaos army. 30 cultists rapid firing with plus 1 to hit, plus 1 to wound, full to hit rerolls, was a very strong combination for much of 8th edition and featured in a few top 8 chaos lists. Cultists were then nerfed and no longer had the same efficiency for points and filtered out. They aren't notably better than other choices (like nurglings) for battalion filler. If you are spamming cultists, you are probably still trying to make the abaddon blob work, which is still fairly good, just not tope tables good. Or just making a bad list.
Intercessors were, at one point, completely unused for anything competitive. They were, flatly, bad at the start of 8th, and GW had to repeatedly buff them. All those buffs have now, of course, compounded to where intercessors are probably really too good for their points when they can stack all of them. But the issue is, they're not great without those stacked buffs, which is a bit of a quandry in how to balance then because not even all space marines take full buff advantage.
at the end of the day cultists represent cheap chaff infantry with a low BS/WSlittle to no armor, weak guns, 1 wound, and are taken in large units.
Intercessors meanwhile are elite infantry with a relativly high armor save, a good WS/BS. Strong weaponry (we're talking the basic infantry guns here) multiple wounds and are typically taken in small squad sizes. they're not mirrors, they are in fact closer to polar oppisites. yes they can be used for similer purposes but how they go about it is VERY VERY differant. A MIRROR would be CSMs vs Tactical Marines.
so we can't really say much beyond the fact that it's looking like 9th edition MAY favor "elite heavy infantry" over "cheap disposable chaff"
The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.
Well done posting all caps diatribes against a premise I already tried to help you realize I wasn't taking though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And that's why GW doesn't deserve money for their printed material
I cautiously bought the Datacards for Codex Marines and Ultramarines as I figured they'd be the least likely to be revised given how new they were.
In a perfect world the Stratagems for Marines/Marine supplements would remain the same, and any new ones would be released in a limited release "update" pack that just contains the new/updated Stratagems. Along side this would be a full pack containing all the current datacards. This would allow people who already own the (very, very new) datacards to just update their set rather than having to buy a whole new set.
Eldarain wrote: The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.
except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.
even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)
Eldarain wrote: The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.
except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.
even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)
Yes we have the core unit in the most powerful faction. Which has been piled high with special rules not reflected in its cost. It's better than the lesser races elites.
On the other side a unit already nerfed multiple times one of which literally stripping it of any sliver of the unaccounted free buffs that exemplify the modern design. Heading into an edition where horde units will be taking more hits than non horde units and we've been told morale will be more impactful than 8th.
Which of these units should have gotten a higher points increase?
Which goes to my original point. The Marines are already Ascendant and nothing points to that changing. Quite the contrary everything we've been shown is to their advantage.
Or you know obsess about my use of the word mirror and keep ALL CAPS raging.
Eldarain wrote: The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.
except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.
even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)
Yes we have the core unit in the most powerful faction. Which has been piled high with special rules not reflected in its cost. It's better than the lesser races elites.
On the other side a unit already nerfed multiple times one of which literally stripping it of any sliver of the unaccounted free buffs that exemplify the modern design. Heading into an edition where horde units will be taking more hits than non horde units and we've been told morale will be more impactful than 8th.
Which of these units should have gotten a higher points increase?
Which goes to my original point. The Marines are already Ascendant and nothing points to that changing. Quite the contrary everything we've been shown is to their advantage.
Or you know obsess about my use of the word mirror and keep ALL CAPS raging.
Based on 8th ed? The Intercessor. Full stop. Charge for the guns too. Based on 9th? No fething clue.
Eldarain wrote: Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.
Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.
.. in what world are CULTISTS the mirror of intercessors. they're completely differant units with completely differant goals, yes they're both troops but that doesn't make them mirrors at all.
Mirror as in the armies Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines
Beautifully nitpicked though. I'll edit it to avoid my point being sidestepped so easily.
I'm pretty sure there are 0 CSM players who put Cultist in their armies to do the job that Intercessors do in a SM army. Other than both being Troops choices, they are still completely different units, as BrianDavion noted.
Okay, so, savvy, what DOES a unit of intercessors and cultists do in this, the current end of 8th meta, do?
For a certain build of marines, intercessors make up a tough to kill chaff wall. For some builds of chaos, cultists make a large chaff wall. They're pretty comparable here. Iron hands intercessors and abbandon backed cultists often have the same job.
How about kicking out a large plurality of anti infantry firepower? Intercessors in tac doctrine using vet intercessor trait verse cultists using VotlW and maybe even slaanesh double shooting. There's a good comparison there.
The main difference is simply, GW has made intercessors increasingly valuable, and cultists increasingly unvaluable. There was a point that a blob of 30 cultists could and did do anything you wanted 10 intercessors to do, but vastly better. Now it is the reverse.
There really isn't that many roles in the game, there's only a handful that any unit fits in to.
In 8th Cultists largely gained value from being easy to spam for large amounts of CP on the cheap. Everything after that was just a bonus.
In 9th they're still a cheap unit who can be easilly tossed onto objectives to perform actions without investing a large amount of points into them or losing much of your army's damage out put.
An Intercessor Squad not shooting or punching things is a much larger relative chunk of the army not killing things.
That's just an off the top of my head thought though, there may be more going on that we don't know. Like maybe hordes get AoS morale mechanics (+1Ld for every 10 models in a unit).
I'm sorry, but this isn't correct. Cultists when they were used competitively made up a core part of the offensive force of a chaos army. 30 cultists rapid firing with plus 1 to hit, plus 1 to wound, full to hit rerolls, was a very strong combination for much of 8th edition and featured in a few top 8 chaos lists. Cultists were then nerfed and no longer had the same efficiency for points and filtered out. They aren't notably better than other choices (like nurglings) for battalion filler. If you are spamming cultists, you are probably still trying to make the abaddon blob work, which is still fairly good, just not tope tables good. Or just making a bad list.
Intercessors were, at one point, completely unused for anything competitive. They were, flatly, bad at the start of 8th, and GW had to repeatedly buff them. All those buffs have now, of course, compounded to where intercessors are probably really too good for their points when they can stack all of them. But the issue is, they're not great without those stacked buffs, which is a bit of a quandry in how to balance then because not even all space marines take full buff advantage.
at the end of the day cultists represent cheap chaff infantry with a low BS/WSlittle to no armor, weak guns, 1 wound, and are taken in large units.
Intercessors meanwhile are elite infantry with a relativly high armor save, a good WS/BS. Strong weaponry (we're talking the basic infantry guns here) multiple wounds and are typically taken in small squad sizes. they're not mirrors, they are in fact closer to polar oppisites. yes they can be used for similer purposes but how they go about it is VERY VERY differant. A MIRROR would be CSMs vs Tactical Marines.
so we can't really say much beyond the fact that it's looking like 9th edition MAY favor "elite heavy infantry" over "cheap disposable chaff"
They did say that we would see more super soldiers, problem is, all super soldiers aren't currently playing on a level playing field. That, however, will most likely have to wait for a new codex to be addressed. Whenever that may happen.
Eldarain wrote: The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.
except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.
even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)
Yes we have the core unit in the most powerful faction. Which has been piled high with special rules not reflected in its cost. It's better than the lesser races elites.
On the other side a unit already nerfed multiple times one of which literally stripping it of any sliver of the unaccounted free buffs that exemplify the modern design. Heading into an edition where horde units will be taking more hits than non horde units and we've been told morale will be more impactful than 8th.
Which of these units should have gotten a higher points increase?
Which goes to my original point. The Marines are already Ascendant and nothing points to that changing. Quite the contrary everything we've been shown is to their advantage.
Or you know obsess about my use of the word mirror and keep ALL CAPS raging.
I'd almost be willing to put money on space marines being preeminent only until eldar get a new codex
9th edition sounds like an "elites" edition. Normal cheap troops will not contribute to cp, so why bother bringing them? Also, GW will want to continue to push primaris, which are obviously the elite amongst the troop choices.
They want you to be able to field an all primaris army with zero downsides. Because all the new models they want to sell to Marine players are primaris.
If horde style lists gets the short end of the stick at first, they are probably fine with that. They will let chapter approved address that balance issue.
So my prediction is that 9th ed will launch with "elite" type units firmly in the forefront, and this includes all manner of primaris.
I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.
First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?
Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.
Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.
40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.
Lower points investment on units to score with also leaves more room for killer units. Pure elite armies will have to trade off more of their army's utility pieces to try to keep from falling too far behind on scoring, something that will increase horde durability.
And based on the tournament formats 9th is taking from being tabled won't lose you the game meaning that an Elite army player who just tries to table will lose more often than a horde army that focuses on scoring over killing.
Also most of those units taking actions can't be within a set distance of an opposing unit to score in the secondaries GW showed. This means hordes can more easily prevent elite armies from scoring objectives based on holding.
I am willing to bet some, if not most of the killing secondaries will be capped to ensure elite armies can't runaway with the game against hordes too. ITC has caps for that reason for example.
That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.
First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?
Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.
Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.
40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.
Lower points investment on units to score with also leaves more room for killer units. Pure elite armies will have to trade off more of their army's utility pieces to try to keep from falling too far behind on scoring, something that will increase horde durability.
And based on the tournament formats 9th is taking from being tabled won't lose you the game meaning that an Elite army player who just tries to table will lose more often than a horde army that focuses on scoring over killing.
Also most of those units taking actions can't be within a set distance of an opposing unit to score in the secondaries GW showed. This means hordes can more easily prevent elite armies from scoring objectives based on holding.
I am willing to bet some, if not most of the killing secondaries will be capped to ensure elite armies can't runaway with the game against hordes too. ITC has caps for that reason for example.
That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.
and if they make elite troops too pricy, because of that people won't take them. at all.
I for one am not really eager to see Marine players forced to return to the "scout meta"
alextroy wrote: I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
You make the fatal mistake that people always make with the cheap "Love you Dakka!" posts: You assume that the people saying the first thing and the people saying the second thing are the same people.
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.
First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?
Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.
Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.
40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.
Lower points investment on units to score with also leaves more room for killer units. Pure elite armies will have to trade off more of their army's utility pieces to try to keep from falling too far behind on scoring, something that will increase horde durability.
And based on the tournament formats 9th is taking from being tabled won't lose you the game meaning that an Elite army player who just tries to table will lose more often than a horde army that focuses on scoring over killing.
Also most of those units taking actions can't be within a set distance of an opposing unit to score in the secondaries GW showed. This means hordes can more easily prevent elite armies from scoring objectives based on holding.
I am willing to bet some, if not most of the killing secondaries will be capped to ensure elite armies can't runaway with the game against hordes too. ITC has caps for that reason for example.
That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.
and if they make elite troops too pricy, because of that people won't take them. at all.
I for one am not really eager to see Marine players forced to return to the "scout meta"
Something else worth noting is that Primaris have very few (if any) weapons that would be "blast" weapons. All their wargear is more about filling the air with bullets over blowing stuff up.
Eldenfirefly wrote: 9th edition sounds like an "elites" edition. Normal cheap troops will not contribute to cp, so why bother bringing them? Also, GW will want to continue to push primaris, which are obviously the elite amongst the troop choices.
They want you to be able to field an all primaris army with zero downsides. Because all the new models they want to sell to Marine players are primaris.
If horde style lists gets the short end of the stick at first, they are probably fine with that. They will let chapter approved address that balance issue.
So my prediction is that 9th ed will launch with "elite" type units firmly in the forefront, and this includes all manner of primaris.
Whether it turns out to be an elite edition or not is still up for grabs, but this 'everything they do is for primaris' stuff needs to calm the hell down. So far in the entire history of Space marine competitive play 2 primaris units have been considered majorly competitive, Repulsors when IH could make them indestructible and Intercessors because they were a point efficient troop choice. Everything else is good but unspectacular or a worse version of something mini-marines have. Not even mentioning the whole 'they were freaking terrible on release' thing.
Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.
One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.
Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.
After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.
But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.
I for one am liking what I see, but I am not going to go all out on them until I see what shakes out in the secondary market when you see the ubiquitous sunshine johnny's run out there and eat that elephant in two bites, only to put it on Fee Bay for a song and a dance.
Those names though... Damn.... SMH.
That new Starter set is pretty cherry though. 130 for that lot is a pretty good deal to start the game with. Add in a couple of squads, and you really don't need much more.
Has anyone seen he new book yet? What are those guns on the bikes, Twin linked Storm bolters? Why did they pick Motorcycles, instead of Grav Bikes? Other then that, They fit for the asthetic, and an army on the table is going to be YUUUUUGE!
You want to know who I want? a YUUUUDICATOR! He is so cool, that I will use him in all of my armies. HE is my new Waifu.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: . An exception do with would be troops, which can still shoot and fight.
.
That would make sense in the crunch but be nonsense in the fluff.
Why would a less trained, basic infantry unit be more capable of performing actions while remaining battle operative than better trained and equipped elite units?
I hope they don't pull something like that. Total immersion breaker.
More immersion breaking than a tank or a unit of terminators being unable to control an objective, because a grot is next to them?
Because that's basically what objective secured is.
And I would argue on that inconsistency, saying different units should have values per model when it comes to claiming an objective.
The last thing we need is bloat because "fluff" reasons
Nightlord1987 wrote: .... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?
I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.
I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.
I agree. I'm sick of people building lists to feed command points into a couple units. It's the epitome of "power gamer".
It seems like this new cp format is going to be better. It should help reduce crippling alpha strikes due to cp dumps early on in the game.
Then armies that were Made to just barely Function with them did not exist? Harlequins , csm and even gk?
Incidentaly one of said armies also get's what seems to be a further nerf relatively speaking whilest relatively speaking the best troop choice in the game seems to get a buff?
That doesn't Make you question the decision?
Bdrone wrote: Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.
Not Online!!! wrote: The judicars is gak especially compared to the real world
Inspiration of the sword.
I think he looks pretty cool.
He can't even wear a cloak propperly...
It's a coat, and it's a visual reference to samurai movies IIRC (digging a bit it seems the first movie to do it was Yojimbo, where the idea was that a Samurai that lost their master would keep their sword arm out of their sleeve to symbolize the loss, that or it's a Final Fantasy X reference (which was a Yojimbo reference in its own right) it just looks badass).
Nightlord1987 wrote: .... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?
I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.
I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.
I agree. I'm sick of people building lists to feed command points into a couple units. It's the epitome of "power gamer".
It seems like this new cp format is going to be better. It should help reduce crippling alpha strikes due to cp dumps early on in the game.
Then armies that were Made to just barely Function with them did not exist? Harlequins , csm and even gk?
Incidentaly one of said armies also get's what seems to be a further nerf relatively speaking whilest relatively speaking the best troop choice in the game seems to get a buff?
That doesn't Make you question the decision?
Wakshaani wrote: Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.
One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.
Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.
After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.
But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.
C'mon G-dubs. Help a brother out.
I'm happy with the reveals so far, more details would be nice, but the whole point is to tease and generate buzz, so I'm fine with it only being small reveals so far.
I agree that army building/detachments info would be nice,but what I really want to see is some reveals for terrain: how it works, how much terrain will be recommended, but I think what I'm most interested in seeing now is the nrew morale attrition mechanic. If Leadership really does become meaningful, this could be a game changer.
Bdrone wrote: Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.
Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:
Bdrone wrote: Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.
Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:
Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.
Bdrone wrote: Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.
Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:
Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.
From WHC:
The Command phase is a quick new addition to the turn sequence. In this phase, Battle-forged armies will acquire new Command points and spend the ones they have on certain Stratagems.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.
That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.
If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.
That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.
Eh. Marines gain about 10% boost to their win rate with ITC. That's bad news for hordes for 9th ed since 9th ed is taking notes from ITC. Taking notes of marine favouring ruleset=marines are very likely GAINING rather than being hurt by new scenarios.
ITC is about marine gunlines. Unless 9th ed somehow fixes that marines the non-ITC tournaments will go toward the marine domination like ITC was already.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.
That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.
If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.
Stop extrapolating the full game's point changes based on two units. You're not jumping the fun, you're leaping a whole artillery company when you do that.
And wait for more info before you go beating that drum about Marines still breaking the game. Friggin he'll, all you're doing is jumping to conclusions and then attacking people for not sharing your conclusions.
That's just some of the stuff based on the strength of hordes in ITC style scoring games, which 9th clearly is taking a lot of notes from.
Eh. Marines gain about 10% boost to their win rate with ITC. That's bad news for hordes for 9th ed since 9th ed is taking notes from ITC. Taking notes of marine favouring ruleset=marines are very likely GAINING rather than being hurt by new scenarios.
ITC is about marine gunlines. Unless 9th ed somehow fixes that marines the non-ITC tournaments will go toward the marine domination like ITC was already.
Please stop, because your posting out your backside. Terrain is changing, points are changing, heck CP and missions are changing. Elite units have to turn off larger portions of their army to score some objectives. Before you do your best Chicken Little impression wait for more info before making claims about an edition you haven't played a single game of, much less seen the full rules.
Aash wrote: Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.
Reece already has said players gain CP midgame though(and only way the CP values in table makes sense since GW said players get more and table results in CP nerf for many...). While Reece can't be trusted on what is good and what is not(especially orks...stompas brokenly good in 8th ed? lol. And that was before codex that buffed stompa which is still sucky...) one would presume he doesn't speak total crap about how rules work.
Bdrone wrote: Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.
Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:
Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.
From WHC:
The Command phase is a quick new addition to the turn sequence. In this phase, Battle-forged armies will acquire new Command points and spend the ones they have on certain Stratagems.
Yes, but this is vague enough that it doesn't necessarily mean the CPs are generated every turn for everyone. It could be that already existing mechanics which generate CPs now take place in the Command Phase. The same way for the shooting phase says that you shoot ranged weapons at the enemy, this only applies to some factions (looking at Daemons) or the pychic phase that doeasn't apply for some factions.
That being said, I expect that there will be CPs generated each turn, but an inkling of doubt has slipped in for me.
ClockworkZion wrote: [Stop extrapolating the full game's point changes based on two units. You're not jumping the fun, you're leaping a whole artillery company when you do that.
And wait for more info before you go beating that drum about Marines still breaking the game. Friggin he'll, all you're doing is jumping to conclusions and then attacking people for not sharing your conclusions.
Please stop, because your posting out your backside. Terrain is changing, points are changing, heck CP and missions are changing. Elite units have to turn off larger portions of their army to score some objectives. Before you do your best Chicken Little impression wait for more info before making claims about an edition you haven't played a single game of, much less seen the full rules.
lol. People always go "just wait" and 99% times just wait results in "just wait" group being proven wrong, again.
Note point values show marines are rather gaining more.
Terrain and missions are changing to ITC style that favours marines. Nothing so far being shown HURTS marines.
CP? Bonus for marines. Again.
Oh and playtesters are guys who have been making their tournaments pro elites, anti horde.
But yeah keep putting your head under the sand and repeat "all is well, all is well, all is well". You forget: GW doesn't care about balance. They aren't doing it for balance. Their playtesters are pro elite, anti horde as shown in the rules THEY THEMSELVES have created. NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER has been helping hordes. Everything has been giving bonuses to marines. At this point there needs to be something HUGE to offset. Terrain, CP, missions, points, vehicles. All helping elites more than hordes so far.
Just because you can't see obvious doesn't mean others can't. I hope you don't have hopes of career in game design.
Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.
ClockworkZion wrote: [Stop extrapolating the full game's point changes based on two units. You're not jumping the fun, you're leaping a whole artillery company when you do that.
And wait for more info before you go beating that drum about Marines still breaking the game. Friggin he'll, all you're doing is jumping to conclusions and then attacking people for not sharing your conclusions.
Please stop, because your posting out your backside. Terrain is changing, points are changing, heck CP and missions are changing. Elite units have to turn off larger portions of their army to score some objectives. Before you do your best Chicken Little impression wait for more info before making claims about an edition you haven't played a single game of, much less seen the full rules.
lol. People always go "just wait" and 99% times just wait results in "just wait" group being proven wrong, again.
Note point values show marines are rather gaining more.
Terrain and missions are changing to ITC style that favours marines. Nothing so far being shown HURTS marines.
CP? Bonus for marines. Again.
Oh and playtesters are guys who have been making their tournaments pro elites, anti horde.
But yeah keep putting your head under the sand and repeat "all is well, all is well, all is well". You forget: GW doesn't care about balance. They aren't doing it for balance. Their playtesters are pro elite, anti horde as shown in the rules THEY THEMSELVES have created. NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER has been helping hordes. Everything has been giving bonuses to marines. At this point there needs to be something HUGE to offset. Terrain, CP, missions, points, vehicles. All helping elites more than hordes so far.
Just because you can't see obvious doesn't mean others can't. I hope you don't have hopes of career in game design.
Arguing from emotion and with no real proof while spamming nonsense does nothing to contribue to the discussion of news and rumors. This isn't a thread for you to throw a fit in about how you assume something will screw the whole game system.over just because 8th ended with Marines leading the pack.
ClockworkZion wrote: Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.
You're probably right, but I'm not 100% convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if CP generation is linked to your Warlord being on the table or some such. I think I'm trying to make as few assumptions as possible right now.
ClockworkZion wrote: Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.
You're probably right, but I'm not 100% convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if CP generation is linked to your Warlord being on the table or some such. I think I'm trying to make as few assumptions as possible right now.
I could see your Warlotd being alive reason to give an additional CP on top of whatever your army generates for being battleforged. There may be other bonuses as well.
Wakshaani wrote: Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.
One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.
Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.
After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.
But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.
C'mon G-dubs. Help a brother out.
I'm happy with the reveals so far, more details would be nice, but the whole point is to tease and generate buzz, so I'm fine with it only being small reveals so far.
I agree that army building/detachments info would be nice,but what I really want to see is some reveals for terrain: how it works, how much terrain will be recommended, but I think what I'm most interested in seeing now is the nrew morale attrition mechanic. If Leadership really does become meaningful, this could be a game changer.
I'm interested in how morale will work as well, seeing as how they specifically mentioned it would help Night Lords.
Bdrone wrote: Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.
To be fair even 24 CP is less that IG's 25 starting CP plus 1 per turn for 31 CP.
It also depends on how all these WL traits and Relics for CP generation work with the edition changes aswell.
ClockworkZion wrote: Both players gain command resources is a clear statement. You can try reading it another way, but there is no reading of "both players" and "command resources" to mean they don't get the same exact resources (aka CP) every turn.
You're probably right, but I'm not 100% convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if CP generation is linked to your Warlord being on the table or some such. I think I'm trying to make as few assumptions as possible right now.
I could see your Warlotd being alive reason to give an additional CP on top of whatever your army generates for being battleforged. There may be other bonuses as well.
Well your first statement either has to be wrong or it's a massive leak your not sharing as things like WL traots and relics the generate CP either have to have been removed from the game or those being able to hand out 6 CP and/or 5CP which will ofset any CP cost of allies.
That or Allies turn off/half your CP per turn generation to make it an actual downside to taking them.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.
If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.
Wakshaani wrote: Two things left for me to see before I'll be solid on this one.
One: Detatchments, or army building in general. I need to know what direction they're going with, now that we have the four battle sizes and the CP worked out.
Two: Terrain. We know the official rules were awful and they've changed them, probably aligned with the ITC but hopefully more than that. But we need to know more.
After that? Things like specific point costs or the pages of new strats are *nice*, but they aren't *essential*.
But we need to know more on army building and terrain and the sooner the better.
C'mon G-dubs. Help a brother out.
I'm happy with the reveals so far, more details would be nice, but the whole point is to tease and generate buzz, so I'm fine with it only being small reveals so far.
I agree that army building/detachments info would be nice,but what I really want to see is some reveals for terrain: how it works, how much terrain will be recommended, but I think what I'm most interested in seeing now is the nrew morale attrition mechanic. If Leadership really does become meaningful, this could be a game changer.
I'm interested in how morale will work as well, seeing as how they specifically mentioned it would help Night Lords.
Yea i'm looking forward to more info on morale. They mentioned an 'attrition' mechanic, so perhaps units suffer debuffs in addition to loosing models if they fail morale. Something like they can't move next turn or -1 bs or something.
Back in older editions morale was so much more important, i can remember in 2ed having units failing a break test falling back 2d6 and never passing it so they ran off the board, it was huge. OFC marines were 'shaken' which negated most of this, because marines
Regarding CP generation I imagine KT rules might be implemented. 1 CP per your turn(since this is not AA) and you can get an extra CP for your warlord. I would love that rule as it makes killing the Warlord a rewarding experience.
So Points Go up across-the-board.
Will games be played at 2.500 points now?
I don't want smaller games, but I appreciate the attempt for better fine tuning.
Eldarsif wrote: Regarding CP generation I imagine KT rules might be implemented. 1 CP per your turn(since this is not AA) and you can get an extra CP for your warlord. I would love that rule as it makes killing the Warlord a rewarding experience.
Yeah, In KT if they kill your leader it doesn't mean automatic loss ,but you're really, really crippled. I would like to see this change too.
Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:
-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big
-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.
If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed. If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.
Depending on the context, it could still be accurate. The statement would not be false if they were talking generally, rather than making a definitive statement covering every scenario. Furthermore, it is also entirely possible (albeit not the best writing practice) that all current CP generation methods remain unchanged in their timing, and thus don't activate in the command phase.
@H.B.M.C.: I meant to say "Not sure how", if that changes how you view the post at all.
If they make morale truly more important I hope they're not going to give "unbreakable" left and right so that it still matters. Keep the 2CP strat to auto-pass and a few Ld buffs from characters maybe, but unbreakable units are just tiresome.
What would be interesting would be a system where the size of the unit doesn't matter that much. I don't see why a sole survivor from a 5 man squad would be as likely to flee as a unit of 10 that lost 4 men. You still have 5 comrades.
Morale in 8th was a mess because there was no incentive on taking large or max sized units as you had the same Ld whether the unit is min sized or max sized. Yeah I can get a third special weapon on my Skitarii squad, but if I roll a 6 after losing 3 guys I lose 2 more for free whereas the unit would just be wiped on min sized, and thus I would've lost less models in a way.
I dislike the way morale is just free additional casualties. My cyborg soldiers wouldn't run like hell because they lost a few dudes, they'd regroup somewhere and counter-attack.
Small scoop from a GW employee, apparently there is supposed to be a site update of some description for the web store booked on the 10th of July. July 11th might be either the preorder or release date.
diepotato47 wrote: Small scoop from a GW employee, apparently there is supposed to be a site update of some description for the web store booked on the 10th of July. July 11th might be either the preorder or release date.
That would tie in with the other roumer of 25th as release day, with a 2 week preorder window.
Since the rules are going to be free in a basic capacity, I wouldn't be surprised if some video'd preview games may be released before the end of this month to build further momentum. There's only so much they can divulge in articles every day before they run out of content that is not flat out just giving away all the rules.
Kaneda88 wrote: Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:
-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big
-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.
Just a hunch, I could very well be totally wrong, but I think Characters won't be able to perform "objective related" actions, at least not the dirt cheap ones. Otherwise yes, order officers, meks, lictors, etc will be better than using troops to accomplish actions.
For all we know only troops will be able to perform some of the actions. If not now, then after the first faq when they realise averyone is trying to take minimal number of troops, jest like in... Nearly all 40k editions (one of the reasons i love 8th) .
I think this 9th ed releset will change a lot ad time goes by, and info fees back to GW. I am confident on the medium-long run for this ed, whatever "anti-hord anti-troop rules" are relased in July
Kaneda88 wrote: Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:
-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big
-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.
Just a hunch, I could very well be totally wrong, but I think Characters won't be able to perform "objective related" actions, at least not the dirt cheap ones. Otherwise yes, order officers, meks, lictors, etc will be better than using troops to accomplish actions.
For all we know only troops will be able to perform some of the actions. If not now, then after the first faq when they realise averyone is trying to take minimal number of troops, jest like in... Nearly all 40k editions (one of the reasons i love 8th) .
I think this 9th ed releset will change a lot ad time goes by, and info fees back to GW. I am confident on the medium-long run for this ed, whatever "anti-hord anti-troop rules" are relased in July
Rereading shadow operatives that may be the case, but mental interrogation on astropaths... i hope actions are not spamable
Eldenfirefly wrote: 9th edition sounds like an "elites" edition. Normal cheap troops will not contribute to cp, so why bother bringing them? Also, GW will want to continue to push primaris, which are obviously the elite amongst the troop choices.
They want you to be able to field an all primaris army with zero downsides. Because all the new models they want to sell to Marine players are primaris.
If horde style lists gets the short end of the stick at first, they are probably fine with that. They will let chapter approved address that balance issue.
So my prediction is that 9th ed will launch with "elite" type units firmly in the forefront, and this includes all manner of primaris.
I am willing to bet that objective secured will still be in 9th and that you will need more models (not wounds) on an objective in order to control it vs. enemy models. Troops will still have their place. 10 cultists will still be able to pounce on an objective held by something without obsec and steal it from them etc.
Eldarain wrote: The subject of the entire post was the Space Marine faction. I even clarified that for you when you read mirror and mistakenly applied it to Intercessor/Cultist.
except THATS ALL WE fething HAVE! an intercessor vs a Cultist. that is it. our SINGLE fething datapoint. there's no "mirror" here. we literally see a unit that is one of the most expendable chaff units in the game, and a unit that is, short of custodes one of the most elite generic troop choices in the game.
even the basic codices aren't exactly mirrors of one another. (GW's been moving away from that for some time) chill. if tactical marines are somehow cheaper then chaos Marines? THEN you have a right to complain. (I'll be right beside you doing so)
Yeah it's weird I did notice that about half the units in the csm codex are shared with the SM codex and they're all still the exact same cost except for that 1ppm differential on the CSMs...so hopefully that's resolved lol.
Kaneda88 wrote: Hey so i know i am a bit late but i wanted to adress what some people said of cultist getting a more relative important increase because actions could be taken more easily with them, 2 things:
-A minimum intercessor unit is 5 men while a minimum cultist unit is 10 so the diference in order to perform action will not be that big
-Speaking as a mostly guard player unless something prevents me from it i will NOT use my guardsmen to perform actions, i will use my otherwise useless except for orders officers, not sure if other armies have it that clear cut but characters seem a good idea for actions.
Just a hunch, I could very well be totally wrong, but I think Characters won't be able to perform "objective related" actions, at least not the dirt cheap ones. Otherwise yes, order officers, meks, lictors, etc will be better than using troops to accomplish actions.
For all we know only troops will be able to perform some of the actions. If not now, then after the first faq when they realise averyone is trying to take minimal number of troops, jest like in... Nearly all 40k editions (one of the reasons i love 8th) .
I think this 9th ed releset will change a lot ad time goes by, and info fees back to GW. I am confident on the medium-long run for this ed, whatever "anti-hord anti-troop rules" are relased in July
My sources say characters aren’t untargetable like in 8th edition, so that should alleviate this concern somewhat. (character needs to be within x inches of another unit that is also closer to the enemy to be untargetable).
Aaranis wrote: If they make morale truly more important I hope they're not going to give "unbreakable" left and right so that it still matters. Keep the 2CP strat to auto-pass and a few Ld buffs from characters maybe, but unbreakable units are just tiresome.
What would be interesting would be a system where the size of the unit doesn't matter that much. I don't see why a sole survivor from a 5 man squad would be as likely to flee as a unit of 10 that lost 4 men. You still have 5 comrades.
Morale in 8th was a mess because there was no incentive on taking large or max sized units as you had the same Ld whether the unit is min sized or max sized. Yeah I can get a third special weapon on my Skitarii squad, but if I roll a 6 after losing 3 guys I lose 2 more for free whereas the unit would just be wiped on min sized, and thus I would've lost less models in a way.
I dislike the way morale is just free additional casualties. My cyborg soldiers wouldn't run like hell because they lost a few dudes, they'd regroup somewhere and counter-attack.
Yeah, I feel like they changed morale from 7th to 8th because "oh it's too complicated to track a unit falling back!" but it's just...objectively not. It's not hard. And it was a pretty cool game mechanic. i hope that they make morale more universal/easy to fail, and bring back some kind of fall back-regroup thing.
Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.
Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.
I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.
That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.
If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.
Leaving aside for a moment the "don't judge the whole on two data points"* argument, Intercessors and Cultists aren't at all in the same context with regard to player complaints. The complaint about Cultists is that Chaos Space Marine armies should contain at least some actual Chaos Space Marines, aka a complaint coming from CSM players. The complaints about Intercessors is that they're too good, which is a complaint coming from the other side of the table.
There's also been those reports that when asked if the new CP generation meant that there wasn't a reason to take troops anymore and might we start seeing armies of just tanks, characters, and elites? the answer was a smug "maybe", so it's possible that CSM went up just a point or two as well to encourage taking the iconic troop option over Cultists while Intercessors didn't get a huge increase because GW thinks Loyalist players will skip the troop section altogether if they went up much more than that. Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.
* - Which I think is not an entirely fair argument in the first place; of course we're going to work from the assumption that GW considers the data points they published to be representative.
Bdrone wrote: Ahh. so less command points than expected at 2k, but hey, 3k is the 4th supported playing size now, with a point increase to match.
well, thats amusing, and makes preparing for 9th even harder to predict than before. i wonder what this did for my prospective knight and IG lists. can't even exactly call it a nerf, because the points changes could be all over the place, except for people who played for max command points. pretty sure they get less no matter what now unless that command phase thing is involved with some kind of generation as theorized.
12 CP + what generated in turn. Reece said average you have more than before but less than maximum. Maybe 1CP per turn then for 18 CP in game. 2 CP would be 24CP for game.
Both players generate CP each player turn, so it'd be 24 CP a game for 1CP a turn, and 36/game for 2CP a turn:
Reading this I'm not convinced that CPs are generated every turn by default. "both players muster strategic resources and use tactical abilities" could be referring to things like issuing orders, earning VPs, and spending CPs on certain strategems that prevoiusly happened "at the start of the turn"/"beginning of the movement phase" and possible other mechanics.
From WHC:
The Command phase is a quick new addition to the turn sequence. In this phase, Battle-forged armies will acquire new Command points and spend the ones they have on certain Stratagems.
You're jumping to conclusions here, the WarCom article is giving examples of what can be done in the new Command Phase, it is not explicitly stated that both players will generate CP at the start of every turn, we just don't have the information to make that guess. Personally, I expect the actual rules to say "In your Command Phase", so you'll only be generating CP in your turn, but we'll see.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.
If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.
No they don't, not in the slightest. An in built game mechanic for both players to generate CP in the Command Phase is mutually exclusive to any ability that allowes you to regain CP's after using stratagems or abilities that grant you extra CP (most of which happen before the game begins).
I have absolutely no idea how anyone could ever think that the existence of 1 mechanic automatically forces out the existense of all of the others, thats just daft.
Aaranis wrote: If they make morale truly more important I hope they're not going to give "unbreakable" left and right so that it still matters. Keep the 2CP strat to auto-pass and a few Ld buffs from characters maybe, but unbreakable units are just tiresome.
What would be interesting would be a system where the size of the unit doesn't matter that much. I don't see why a sole survivor from a 5 man squad would be as likely to flee as a unit of 10 that lost 4 men. You still have 5 comrades.
Morale in 8th was a mess because there was no incentive on taking large or max sized units as you had the same Ld whether the unit is min sized or max sized. Yeah I can get a third special weapon on my Skitarii squad, but if I roll a 6 after losing 3 guys I lose 2 more for free whereas the unit would just be wiped on min sized, and thus I would've lost less models in a way.
I dislike the way morale is just free additional casualties. My cyborg soldiers wouldn't run like hell because they lost a few dudes, they'd regroup somewhere and counter-attack.
Yeah, I feel like they changed morale from 7th to 8th because "oh it's too complicated to track a unit falling back!" but it's just...objectively not. It's not hard. And it was a pretty cool game mechanic. i hope that they make morale more universal/easy to fail, and bring back some kind of fall back-regroup thing.
It definitely felt kinda like they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they changed the moral mechanic. I mean I hated how it was only a select few armies that ever cared about moral in 7th, and that moral checks were taken after every phase which got tedious, but now nobody cares about moral.
Therion wrote: My sources say characters aren’t untargetable like in 8th edition, so that should alleviate this concern somewhat. (character needs to be within x inches of another unit that is also closer to the enemy to be untargetable).
So basically if there's unit and character behind it and then from character you have 9" away enemy unit(hero is closer to enemy) BUT there's another unit next to the enemy unit(5" away from enemy) then the character can be targeted because the closest unit to enemy unit(which would protect character in 8th ed) isn't within x" of character and the unit that is within x" of character is further from enemy than the character?
Sounds actually decent fixing the issue of "can't shoot character all alone in the middle of nowhere" because he's 13" from shooter and 11" from shooter in completely different direction is some single survivor from unit.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.
Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.
I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.
Yeah, it is funny how for some reason fantasy players have never really had this issue with morale abstractions that include gak like freaking skeletons, yet every 40k player ever gets insanely butthurt if you say that morale rules would apply to *insert faction here down to and including Guardsmen afraid of a man in a big hat or standing near a priest*
Therion wrote: My sources say characters aren’t untargetable like in 8th edition, so that should alleviate this concern somewhat. (character needs to be within x inches of another unit that is also closer to the enemy to be untargetable).
So basically if there's unit and character behind it and then from character you have 9" away enemy unit(hero is closer to enemy) BUT there's another unit next to the enemy unit(5" away from enemy) then the character can be targeted because the closest unit to enemy unit(which would protect character in 8th ed) isn't within x" of character and the unit that is within x" of character is further from enemy than the character?
Sounds actually decent fixing the issue of "can't shoot character all alone in the middle of nowhere" because he's 13" from shooter and 11" from shooter in completely different direction is some single survivor from unit.
Yeah, that makes sense. I'd go so far as to say it'd make the most sense if you had to be within like 3" of a friendly unit AND that friendly unit had to be within a certain threshold of your number of wounds, but that threshold does not have a hard cap. Let Pask hide if he's within 3" of 3 other identical Leman Russ tanks, don't let Guilliman hide behind Guardsmen.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.
If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.
No they don't, not in the slightest. An in built game mechanic for both players to generate CP in the Command Phase is mutually exclusive to any ability that allowes you to regain CP's after using stratagems or abilities that grant you extra CP (most of which happen before the game begins).
I have absolutely no idea how anyone could ever think that the existence of 1 mechanic automatically forces out the existense of all of the others, thats just daft.
You have total misread the conversation.
Clockwork said "both players get the same CP each turn"
That statement is either true and all exsisting ways to generate CP mid turn are gone, or his statementis incorrect.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.
That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.
If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.
Leaving aside for a moment the "don't judge the whole on two data points"* argument, Intercessors and Cultists aren't at all in the same context with regard to player complaints. The complaint about Cultists is that Chaos Space Marine armies should contain at least some actual Chaos Space Marines, aka a complaint coming from CSM players. The complaints about Intercessors is that they're too good, which is a complaint coming from the other side of the table.
There's also been those reports that when asked if the new CP generation meant that there wasn't a reason to take troops anymore and might we start seeing armies of just tanks, characters, and elites? the answer was a smug "maybe", so it's possible that CSM went up just a point or two as well to encourage taking the iconic troop option over Cultists while Intercessors didn't get a huge increase because GW thinks Loyalist players will skip the troop section altogether if they went up much more than that. Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.
* - Which I think is not an entirely fair argument in the first place; of course we're going to work from the assumption that GW considers the data points they published to be representative.
I think this is unlikely. The problem with CSM is that they have to cost the same as tac marines, give or take a point. Even if the tac marines have much better rules. SM and CSM are supposed to feel like mirrors of each other and that just doesn't work if one greatly outnumbers the other, so the most tac marines will ever have to pay for all their special snowflake super special rules is 1 pt. What's the point of having all those special rules to make your guys feel superior and elite if the other side gets enough extra bodies that they overwhelm you with numbers? That's no fun!
And with the new actions system they may decide even 1 pt is too much. Afterall, CSM give up just a little pew pew shooting when they put down their bolters to siphon that sweet alien juice from the pillar, but tac marines give up their superdoctrine buffed shooting! That's a disadvantage for the tac marines, right? I can't see any flaws in that reasoning, can you?
Then the other problem is they want to push primaris, so they're going to skew the pts to make primaris the better choice. If CSM have to be strictly worse than tac marines and tac marines have to strictly worse than primaris you can see why that might be a problem for CSM.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.
That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.
If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.
Leaving aside for a moment the "don't judge the whole on two data points"* argument, Intercessors and Cultists aren't at all in the same context with regard to player complaints. The complaint about Cultists is that Chaos Space Marine armies should contain at least some actual Chaos Space Marines, aka a complaint coming from CSM players. The complaints about Intercessors is that they're too good, which is a complaint coming from the other side of the table.
There's also been those reports that when asked if the new CP generation meant that there wasn't a reason to take troops anymore and might we start seeing armies of just tanks, characters, and elites? the answer was a smug "maybe", so it's possible that CSM went up just a point or two as well to encourage taking the iconic troop option over Cultists while Intercessors didn't get a huge increase because GW thinks Loyalist players will skip the troop section altogether if they went up much more than that. Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.
* - Which I think is not an entirely fair argument in the first place; of course we're going to work from the assumption that GW considers the data points they published to be representative.
I think this is unlikely. The problem with CSM is that they have to cost the same as tac marines, give or take a point. Even if the tac marines have much better rules. SM and CSM are supposed to feel like mirrors of each other and that just doesn't work if one greatly outnumbers the other, so the most tac marines will ever have to pay for all their special snowflake super special rules is 1 pt. What's the point of having all those special rules to make your guys feel superior and elite if the other side gets enough extra bodies that they overwhelm you with numbers? That's no fun!
And with the new actions system they may decide even 1 pt is too much. Afterall, CSM give up just a little pew pew shooting when they put down their bolters to siphon that sweet alien juice from the pillar, but tac marines give up their superdoctrine buffed shooting! That's a disadvantage for the tac marines, right? I can't see any flaws in that reasoning, can you?
Then the other problem is they want to push primaris, so they're going to skew the pts to make primaris the better choice. If CSM have to be strictly worse than tac marines and tac marines have to strictly worse than primaris you can see why that might be a problem for CSM.
I can understand the “primaris need to be better than tactics” reasoning, the “tactics need to be better than csm” however wich is the basis of your argument is not based on anything but your opinion.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Not how it follows that passive CP generation also means that all existing CP generation abilities will need to have been removed.
If both players get the "same CP each command phase" then all those other ways have to have been removed.
If they are still in the game then the statement is not accurate.
No they don't, not in the slightest. An in built game mechanic for both players to generate CP in the Command Phase is mutually exclusive to any ability that allowes you to regain CP's after using stratagems or abilities that grant you extra CP (most of which happen before the game begins).
I have absolutely no idea how anyone could ever think that the existence of 1 mechanic automatically forces out the existense of all of the others, thats just daft.
You have total misread the conversation.
Clockwork said "both players get the same CP each turn"
That statement is either true and all exsisting ways to generate CP mid turn are gone, or his statementis incorrect.
I said that in relation to the Command Phase. Nothing GW has shown negates abilities to generate CP in other manners outside of that phase.
The Newman wrote: Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.
That's an old, dumb canard.
If one was to redesign 40K for competitive play, one of the first steps would almost certainly be culling a large percentage of the datasheets, stratagems, special rules, etc. The vast scope of the game makes it far too unwieldy for true balance to be achievable. Which would ultimately impact the experience of narrative players.
ClockworkZion wrote: CSM can be good if given the right rules to support them, even if they're not 1:1 with Primaris. They just need Legion rules that aren't crap.
even with the access to a unnerfed -1 to hit you don't see them though.
there are a few nutjobs like me that run them in RC to overwhelm the opponent with recycling but i don't need to explain why that in essence is playing with a handicap of about 200-400 pts depending on how close i can get max recycling happen. And even then as soon as the Tac doctrine shows up it isn't even a competition anymore.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.
Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.
I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.
Yeah, it is funny how for some reason fantasy players have never really had this issue with morale abstractions that include gak like freaking skeletons, yet every 40k player ever gets insanely butthurt if you say that morale rules would apply to *insert faction here down to and including Guardsmen afraid of a man in a big hat or standing near a priest*.
The same could be said about using "death" historical figures. In Fantasy 70% of the special characters were "death" on the present, like most greenskin ones as Azhag or Gromp the Paunch or Gorbadd.
I think the problem comes from the fluff. In Fantasy even the most brave of races like dwarfs and elfs are ... mortal people living in a "mortal" world so they can feel fear because they actually have respect for their own lives (Expect slayers or things like that) . But when in 40k everything is so exagerated and you have movie egiptian terminators fighting agaisnt crazy fanatics that would sacrifice themselves willingly agaisnt indoctrinated supersoldiers that KNOW NO FEAR that are 70% of the playerbase and even your mortal factions like guardsmen and Tau are SUPER indoctrinated or have guys that shot them in the head and just with that NO RETREATING! it creates a disconection with how people sees their army. Thats why I think people that want morale to matter in 40k are in the wrong universe.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Morale hasn’t really been a thing since 2nd, when much of that rules section was removed entirely.
Time was, a Carnfex caused Terror, and merely declaring a charge could send an enemy unit shrieking in the other direction.
I’d like to see similar rules feature, at least in some capacity. But when it comes to breaking units in combat, I do prefer Battleshock, have ever since I first played AoS. But, as with 40k’s general problem with psychology since 3rd, they need to be very conservative when dishing out work arounds.
Yeah, it is funny how for some reason fantasy players have never really had this issue with morale abstractions that include gak like freaking skeletons, yet every 40k player ever gets insanely butthurt if you say that morale rules would apply to *insert faction here down to and including Guardsmen afraid of a man in a big hat or standing near a priest*.
The same could be said about using "death" historical figures. In Fantasy 70% of the special characters were "death" on the present, like most greenskin ones as Azhag or Gromp the Paunch or Gorbadd.
I think the problem comes from the fluff. In Fantasy even the most brave of races like dwarfs and elfs are ... mortal people living in a "mortal" world so they can feel fear because they actually have respect for their own lives (Expect slayers or things like that) . But when in 40k everything is so exagerated and you have movie egiptian terminators fighting agaisnt crazy fanatics that would sacrifice themselves willingly agaisnt indoctrinated supersoldiers that KNOW NO FEAR that are 70% of the playerbase and even your mortal factions like guardsmen and Tau are SUPER indoctrinated or have guys that shot them in the head and just with that NO RETREATING! it creates a disconection with how people sees their army. Thats why I think people that want morale to matter in 40k are in the wrong universe.
When GW puts unit after unit after unit after whole damn faction after stratagem after psychic power into the game that is based around "Causing fear" and "destroying morale" you sure as gak better think some people are going to want to play with that playstyle.
This is like the idiots that say Tau shouldn't exist and GW should just squat them and people who play Tau are just bad weeaboos that want to play something that isn't in the game.
Of course it's in the damn game. GW, the company that makes the game, put it there! People wanting to get to use the mechanics and units that GW put in the game are not the problem here.
Thats what I don't understand. Is like GW can't make a mind about that.
1st) They write a fluff for a universe were morale is largely irrelevant except for when night lords appear on screen that THEY ARE SO TERRYFING OMG but nowhere else.
2nd)They write a ton of subfaction and rules based around playing with morale to destroy your enemies
3rd) They make morale extremely marginal and very easy to just ignore even with the more morale-vulnerable armies
4th) ????¿¿¿¿
5th) Profit.
Galas wrote: Thats what I don't understand. Is like GW can't make a mind about that.
1st) They write a fluff for a universe were morale is largely irrelevant except for when night lords appear on screen that THEY ARE SO TERRYFING OMG but nowhere else.
2nd)They write a ton of subfaction and rules based around playing with morale to destroy your enemies
3rd) They make morale extremely marginal and very easy to just ignore even with the more morale-vulnerable armies
4th) ????¿¿¿¿
5th) Profit.
Well, to an extend it's an arbitrary negative that can be used to give armies / players "cool stuff" to off-set it.
You could not have LD in the game and inversely not have "fearless" rules such as Synapse or Ork Morale-whatever or Deathwing-stuff, etc..
Or you could have LD in the game as a "hypothetical problem" and make players happy about having a "cool rule" that ignores it.
For a more minimal, "gamer's" or "competitive game" like, dunno, Shadespire or Kill Team Arena, you probably leave it out to reduce the clutter. For their more "narrative" range of games like 40K or AoS, it adds narrative texture, even if it doesn't impact game play all that much.
alextroy wrote: I find it funny after all the times people have said "4 point Guardsmen are too cheap" and "we should increase the points cost to allow more space for points granularity", people complain because they increased the points cost of units (including the Chaos Guardsmen counterpart) to allow more granularity. Love you, Dakka
Problem is they are increasing horde units more relatively speaking than more elites while also giving buffs to elites and debuffs to cheap stuff.
That's triple kick to the teeth. ATM there's nothing whatsoever that DOESN'T help marines vs everybody else. Now remind me...which faction was sprouting win rate of low 60's(ETC) and nearly 70%(ITC)? Answer: marines.
If people thought marines were too good in 8th ed they might not have seen nothing yet...so far everything GW has shown indicates marines are going to be even more overpowered.
It's hard to just too much from two data points. Both units cost when up and they say all units cost when up. But how much? If Tactical Marines go up to 14 points, they look much better compared to Intercessors than they do today.
An while Marines had a very high win rate that was before the Doctrines nerf. That was barely in effect before Corona put an end to tournament play. I do recall the marine win rate dropping after the nerf, especially for Iron Hands, but the dataset there was small.
So don't panic until there is more information. If most infantry models go up 2 points per model, but Intercessors when up 4, that a downgrade to Intercessors even if the % of change is less than for some units.
Galas wrote: Thats what I don't understand. Is like GW can't make a mind about that.
1st) They write a fluff for a universe were morale is largely irrelevant except for when night lords appear on screen that THEY ARE SO TERRYFING OMG but nowhere else.
2nd)They write a ton of subfaction and rules based around playing with morale to destroy your enemies
3rd) They make morale extremely marginal and very easy to just ignore even with the more morale-vulnerable armies
4th) ????¿¿¿¿
5th) Profit.
Solution: fluff does not have to equal gameplay. Morale is an interesting, fun dynamic for a wargame that allows you to inhibit a unit's effectiveness in more ways than just killing it.
Space marines don't have poison melee attacks, and don't gain benefits for their whateverthefeth dumb glands and gak, give them increased LD compared to guardsmen for their "knowing no fear" and leave it at that. Not everything in the universe HAS to cater to marine players' egos. If AOS can have morale rules for skeletons, 40k can have morale for robots.
The Newman wrote: Which is obviously idle speculation, but based in the known fact that GW designs for the "Build the Narative!" crowd over the competition-focused players and have never grasped that if the game is balanced for competitive play then the casual players have a better experience too.
That's an old, dumb canard.
If one was to redesign 40K for competitive play, one of the first steps would almost certainly be culling a large percentage of the datasheets, stratagems, special rules, etc. The vast scope of the game makes it far too unwieldy for true balance to be achievable. Which would ultimately impact the experience of narrative players.
The game is what it is.
100% correct. Perfect balance is boring. Things that people believe are perfectly balanced, usually aren't. It seems to me that people want the illusion of balance, similar to chess. It appears balanced, but it's not. Whoever gets first turn has an advantage. However, it's not a huge "unfair" advantage. Chess is BORING!
WARNING! SUBJECTIVE OPINION AHEAD! Feel free to ignore or skip this part
Spoiler:
My perspective is this: I'm not big on fluff. I know enough to get an idea for the armies I like, but I don't know their extensive histories. I know the general story line and that's enough for me. I look at the way the game plays and I like the strategic component of it. I'm invested in my armies and their feel, but I think if people could slightly compartmentalize their love of the fluff and the rich world it creates from the mechanics of the game, they would be less (insert adjective here) annoyed/irritated/aggravated/disappointed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't get into the stories, the narrative, the ideas, the universe, but you should temper your expectations when translating that into game-play mechanics. Honestly, if more people would create their own house rules for the game, units, etc. I think they might have a better understanding of how hard it is. It might cut down on so much of the knee jerk reactions I see taking place.
There's something more to 40k than just the mechanical bones of it though. There's something magic. I think part of it is the IGOUGO turn sequence, it adds the feel of commanding an army. Instead of throwing knives, you're swinging a sledge hammer. It creates the need for more preemptive decisions, rather than reactions. I really like it, but it's not for everyone. The game sizes with lots of models is another aspect that I really enjoy too. It adds to the feel, along with great looking terrain.
The vast number of factions/armies, units, weapons, and components of the game make it difficult to balance, but it also makes it interesting. The random component of some mechanics and weapons adds flavor like seasoning to food. Too much and it doesn't taste good, too little and it's bland. Some of the most memorable and fun moments I've had in this game came from a crazy dice roll that resulted in the improbable occurring. IT.....WAS....EPIC! This is the only game I've played where I have just as much fun losing as I do winning. I have enough fun that the game is worth the money, worth the time, worth the (sometimes) aggravation and disappointment. Maybe that's not true for someone else. Maybe it's not true for you.
Could GW do better with balance? Yes. Are they doing better? YES! We need to remember that they've just started turning over a new leaf. I think people have quickly forgotten it wasn't too long ago that there wasn't a way to communicate with the company/designers, it wasn't that long ago that we were basically told, "If you don't like it, go hang. We're a model company, not a game company." Not to mention, the company was constantly taking legal action against anyone that leaked information or posted stats, etc. Not too far in the past, I remember games where you spent a good portion of the time looking up rules while you were playing. The rulebook was an encyclopedia and it took a week of reading before you could start playing.
We're on a good path. I want to enjoy the ride. I AM enjoying the ride!
The new CP mechanic looks good from what I've seen. You'll need to be more selective with your CP, which is good in my book. I'm even excited to try the crusade rules. I'm sure they aren't perfect and there will be flaws, but that's not the end of the world.
I'm really wondering how the blast mechanic will work and how the vehicles/monsters shooting while in combat is going to play out. It's a pretty exciting time.
Just curios, is the general consensus that everyone wants the box set? I know I'm planning on grabbing one.
So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
it's strange, I seem to recall that elite-based armies have been pretty much dominant throughout the edition, there's just been a tiny fraction of the points of the list overall dedicated to a cheap screen to soak up alpha strikes and generate CP. So now they've really turned the meta on its head by allowing someone to take their super beefed up elite army and not have to spend 300-odd points on some min-sized chaff units.
Truly revolutionary. I for one am greatly excited to meet the new boss, who I am assured is entirely different from the old boss.
- broadly speaking, they still work the same as in earlier editions - spending them on strategems, placing units in strategic reserves, etc. Major changes are in how you earn them.
- new edition inverts it; command points are now based on the size of the game you are playing. 3CPs at 500PTS, 6CPs at 1000PTS, 12CPs at 2000PTs, 18CPs at 3000PTs.
- In some missions, you'll receive additional command points during the Command Phase, helping to spread them out across the course of the game.
- detachments cost CPs, however your warlord can refund the cost if he's in the core detachment - you can also pay for detachments from allied factions.
- factions have specific army-rules that interact with command point generation.
- Transports have been tweaked - they no longer take up slots, and one can be taken for /every/ infantry unit in the army.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
That seems more of an issue with Space Marines to be fair. Of course, they'll be even better once the new edition hits.
Latro_ wrote: https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer
stream is live - topic cmd pts
first morcel: only core detachments - patrol, bat, brig give you a refund on the CP to buy it and only if WL is in it.
Anything else costs CP, so you take abby and termies in a vanguard, its ye entire army it still costs CP for that detachemtn
----
mortal wounds (based on number of models you flee from) on people falling back from combat core strat
---
some missions give you CP in the command phase
That is literally all i can tell thats new info in the whole talk
Drukari a d Knights additional CP for detachment still live on.
Hopefully they have the good sence to tie thise to your warlord having to be in said detachment otherwise it's going to be super soup for another edition because of some idea the studio has.
Yeah so far it sounds like soup is still very much the way to play as he did let slip adding A knight only costs 1-2 CP
Please stop breaking codex's so you can keep trying to self mishmash armies
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
And here i thought' they'd realize they fethed up with marines.,..
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
Haven't you learned by now? People don't come here to talk excitedly about a fun new product! They come to gak all over it before we've had more than a morsel of information!
The pts are not going to be the same. Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.
edit: actully i think that was mentioned in yesterdays stream
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
And here i thought' they'd realize they fethed up with marines.,..
I'm not declaring that All Is Lost and the meta will 100% still be marine-dominated, but I am getting heavy flashbacks to 8th, when they steadily revealed the new blasts, the new fall back rules, the new morale system, Overwatch rules, and the part of the community that liked melee was asking
"uh, hey GW, how does melee work? How do you melee? GW?"
and their only answer was "Don't worry about it, melee will be great, 8th will be the best edition for melee ever, pinky swear!"
"So did you fix the issues like random charge rolls then? Is that how melee is fixed?"
"Youll have to read the full rules to find out!!!! we can't spoil everything for you. Now, let's talk about how flamers autohit on overwatch scorin their full effectiveness...and how units can interrupt to fight back..and how you can shoot in melee with pistols but not on the turn you charge..."
Latro_ wrote: The pts are not going to be the same. Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.
edit: actully i think that was mentioned in yesterdays stream
I really hope not as some of them are rediculously over costed in points currently.
I hoep they ahve taken into acount all the rules that effect the wepaons not just done what they did last time and dropped the ball massively.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
What about the terms "Apparently" "What we know" and the like leads you to conclude that a "definite statement" is being made?
I'm not declaring that All Is Lost and the meta will 100% still be marine-dominated, but I am getting heavy flashbacks to 8th, when they steadily revealed the new blasts, the new fall back rules, the new morale system, Overwatch rules, and the part of the community that liked melee was asking
"uh, hey GW, how does melee work? How do you melee? GW?"
and their only answer was "Don't worry about it, melee will be great, 8th will be the best edition for melee ever, pinky swear!"
"So did you fix the issues like random charge rolls then? Is that how melee is fixed?"
"Youll have to read the full rules to find out!!!! we can't spoil everything for you. Now, let's talk about how flamers autohit on overwatch scorin their full effectiveness...and how units can interrupt to fight back..and how you can shoot in melee with pistols but not on the turn you charge..."
Ahh so that's were my Déja-vu feeling was coming from.
I hope it's not the case but still.
that is eeeeerrily similar.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
And complaining about a 2ppm shift vs a 4ppm one only highlights how people will bitch about anything. Of course the percentage is going to look more out of wack when you look at single digits moving vs double digits going up in points.
Right now 15 Intercessors (3 units with 5 models each) is 240 points. In 9th that starts at 300 points. That's a loss of 60 points. 3x10 cultists is currently 120 points. In 9th that's going up to 180 which also loses 60 points. Percentage wise it looks worse for the cultists, but for the armies as a whole 60 points of Primaris is a bigger chunk out of an army in terms of moving and killing than 60 points of cultists would be.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
What about the terms "Apparently" "What we know" and the like leads you to conclude that a "definite statement" is being made?
Because the "apparently" is based on such a small handful of datapoints you might as well use it to draw a cat rather than any real conclusions on how the game will work.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
What about the terms "Apparently" "What we know" and the like leads you to conclude that a "definite statement" is being made?
Because the "apparently" is based on such a small handful of datapoints you might as well use it to draw a cat rather than any real conclusions on how the game will work.
True. My statements about how things are looking at this point and the statements that the designers are making is based on
A) my experience with the rules previews that they chose to highlight when they previewed 8th
B) What the game designer just said, live on stream, about how the armies of playtesters have evolved throughout the tests: By getting more elite
Neither of these things are definitive statements. They are speculative worries. You are the one calling them definitive claims.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
And complaining about a 2ppm shift vs a 4ppm one only highlights how people will bitch about anything. Of course the percentage is going to look more out of wack when you look at single digits moving vs double digits going up in points.
Right now 15 Intercessors (3 units with 5 models each) is 240 points. In 9th that starts at 300 points. That's a loss of 60 points. 3x10 cultists is currently 120 points. In 9th that's going up to 180 which also loses 60 points. Percentage wise it looks worse for the cultists, but for the armies as a whole 60 points of Primaris is a bigger chunk out of an army in terms of moving and killing than 60 points of cultists would be.
60 pts in an army with intercessors is worth more than 60 pts in an army with cultists because in the army with intercessors you could have spent those points on more intercessors whereas in the army with cultists you'd just have bought more lousy cultists. Sounds about right. Hopefully they apply this logic across the board. For balance.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
And complaining about a 2ppm shift vs a 4ppm one only highlights how people will bitch about anything. Of course the percentage is going to look more out of wack when you look at single digits moving vs double digits going up in points.
Right now 15 Intercessors (3 units with 5 models each) is 240 points. In 9th that starts at 300 points. That's a loss of 60 points. 3x10 cultists is currently 120 points. In 9th that's going up to 180 which also loses 60 points. Percentage wise it looks worse for the cultists, but for the armies as a whole 60 points of Primaris is a bigger chunk out of an army in terms of moving and killing than 60 points of cultists would be.
60 pts in an army with intercessors is worth more than 60 pts in an army with cultists because in the army with intercessors you could have spent those points on more intercessors whereas in the army with cultists you'd just have bought more lousy cultists. Sounds about right. Hopefully they apply this logic across the board. For balance.
Since, when looking at units as a whole, the points lost match, it makes me wonder if they just bumped up every unit ~20 points and then worked out the ppm after that.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Something about this argument sounds familiar.
It's only the same arguement that's been made about a dozen times in this thread alone with no real proof, just a lot of assumptions without enough to back them up.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
And complaining about a 2ppm shift vs a 4ppm one only highlights how people will bitch about anything. Of course the percentage is going to look more out of wack when you look at single digits moving vs double digits going up in points.
Right now 15 Intercessors (3 units with 5 models each) is 240 points. In 9th that starts at 300 points. That's a loss of 60 points. 3x10 cultists is currently 120 points. In 9th that's going up to 180 which also loses 60 points. Percentage wise it looks worse for the cultists, but for the armies as a whole 60 points of Primaris is a bigger chunk out of an army in terms of moving and killing than 60 points of cultists would be.
That’s not how math works, 60 points are 60 points, more importantly the 300 points of intercessors will murder with no problem the 300 points of cultists.
But there’s more! Not only do you start the battle with more Command points, but in each of your Command phases – the new opening phase of your turn – you will receive one additional Command point.
And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
And complaining about a 2ppm shift vs a 4ppm one only highlights how people will bitch about anything. Of course the percentage is going to look more out of wack when you look at single digits moving vs double digits going up in points.
Right now 15 Intercessors (3 units with 5 models each) is 240 points. In 9th that starts at 300 points. That's a loss of 60 points. 3x10 cultists is currently 120 points. In 9th that's going up to 180 which also loses 60 points. Percentage wise it looks worse for the cultists, but for the armies as a whole 60 points of Primaris is a bigger chunk out of an army in terms of moving and killing than 60 points of cultists would be.
That’s not how math works, 60 points are 60 points, more importantly the 300 points of intercessors will murder with no problem the 300 points of cultists.
The point was the 60 points for marines is a larger opportunity cost than it is for the cultists. It also shows that while the individual point cost is wildly different, the units both took the same points hike.
That Cut Them Down strat is total gak. You need 12 models to be within engagement range (1 in ch of a model of yours 1 inch from enemy model) to inflict 2 MW on average.
Things really do look grim for hordes if that is the sort of stuff Hordes get to offset all the nerfs they are receiving...
Monsters and Vehicules won't need to disengage anymore from what we heard, and even if they do... 2-3 MW they get ? If you spend a CP ??
If you charge troops, well troops can suffer a few MW to disengage, no question.
THAT STRAT SHOULD BE 0 CP !! Sorry, i'll eat a chill pill right now
And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.
I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.
I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.
And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.
I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.
I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.
We could see AoS 3" engagement range so weapon ranges make more sense.
And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.
I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.
I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.
I wonder if engagement range will vary per unit and not just per base size?
Immediate question- since knights don't do normal detachments, if your building a mono-knight army, how many points are you losing just to do so.
at least people were correct in stating there's command regen per turn. and even if it wont help my current idea, the command refund for some first detachments is nice..
And Cut Them Down looks like it works best for Hordes.
I think that's the intention. With the new blast rules there must be some rebalancing of melee horde.
I notice that it references "Engagement Range" as a new rule. That could just be a codification of the current "within 1" or within 1" of someone within 1"" rule, but I hope they tweak it slightly to remove the mechanical advantage of 25mm bases vs 35mm bases that causes such anxiety any time something gets rebased in official GW boxes.
I wonder if engagement range will vary per unit and not just per base size?
Could be. Adding in like a reach stat or something. Would take a lot of work to designate which units get what.
I can't help but notice that this rule kind of...doesn't fix the fall back problem with the units that suffer most from that, though. You know, it helps supercheap hordes a lot, but really doens't help, like, Terminators, Custodes, all those super-expensive units that don't have the base smallness and numbers to tripoint and you're the most likely to want to pull the ol' fall back and shoot in the face with plasma trick on.
the_scotsman wrote: So, apparently the prediction is going to be that we're going to see a lot of elite armies in the new edition.
Not like now, obviously, elites have been so hamstrung the last six months. Iron Hands primaris+Levi Dread lists were capped out at a pathetic, wimpy 70% winrate, after all.
Yes, because clearly having the entire game see massive shifts means an old edition's meta is still valid as a datapoint for how the future will work.
I mean, when we know going in that the codexes are all going to be the same, and every rule previewed benefits the currently dominant faction extremely heavily (Capped modifiers: helps marines, intercessors getting 15% increase vs another unit getting 50% increase: Helps marines, fixed CP generation regardless of army composition: helps marines, monofaction armies being heavily favored: Helps marines, ITC style secondaries in missions: Helps marines)
Points are changing, terrain is changing, missions are changing, and morale is changing. There are too many shifting datapoints to make definite statements about anything.
And complaining about a 2ppm shift vs a 4ppm one only highlights how people will bitch about anything. Of course the percentage is going to look more out of wack when you look at single digits moving vs double digits going up in points.
Right now 15 Intercessors (3 units with 5 models each) is 240 points. In 9th that starts at 300 points. That's a loss of 60 points. 3x10 cultists is currently 120 points. In 9th that's going up to 180 which also loses 60 points. Percentage wise it looks worse for the cultists, but for the armies as a whole 60 points of Primaris is a bigger chunk out of an army in terms of moving and killing than 60 points of cultists would be.
That’s not how math works, 60 points are 60 points, more importantly the 300 points of intercessors will murder with no problem the 300 points of cultists.
The point was the 60 points for marines is a larger opportunity cost than it is for the cultists. It also shows that while the individual point cost is wildly different, the units both took the same points hike.
By that logic armies with better (read: overpowered/undercosted) units should get smaller increases because they could buy better units with those points. Good luck balancing your game that way.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.
omg if cut them down is 'HERE ye GOeZ hordes and CC players, BUFFFS loolz'
i'll never waste a cp on this, their 30 boyz example is silly. 1. combat has happend already, when are there ever 30 boyz left? the previous combat killed 2-5 say, overwatch killed a couple on the way in and other shooting prob killed some. Plus its hard to prob even get the rest engaged.
So you typically have in the best circumstances 15-20 of your 30 ever engaged and 1cp for 2-4 MW ... pffft who cares. Its no deterrent for a unit to leave combat (esp vs orks say) so his mates can blast them off the board.
If there's some real lenient wording on engagement range then I could see it being used on a retreating character who survived something he shouldn't have/was tagged previously.
Barring that, this really could've been a 0CP strat. Getting to use it for free once per round when an opponent retreats seems fair IMO.
The new building system and points changes are making planning armies hard right now. Had a dual battalion Harlequin army on my desk but now I know I don't need that (or is not desirable) and may want to change my troupe weapon loadout to fit points. Damn, was hoping to get some paint on those dudes.
Latro_ wrote: Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.
The standard GW over-balance.
Problem: 'Blast' weapons (ie. 1D6 shot weapons, generally, like Battlecannons, Frag Missiles, etc.) aren't very good. They certainly aren't worth their points.
Solution: Make blast weapons get all their hits vs bit units. Now they are worth their points.
Overbalance: They're more effective! Better put their points up.
But you just made them worth their points... *sigh*
the_scotsman wrote: Cut them down could be a universal rule, that'd be something.
I'm guessing that we are going to an AoS style everything in 3 inches rule for CC, which actually makes the 30 boys make more sense, but yeah for most MSU's or less it's probably going to be a what strategums, never played.
the_scotsman wrote: Cut them down could be a universal rule, that'd be something.
I'm guessing that we are going to an AoS style everything in 3 inches rule for CC, which actually makes the 30 boys make more sense, but yeah for most MSU's or less it's probably going to be a what strategums, never played.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.
There's a problem with the rules for Falling Back. Units just walk away from combat, and the melee unit gets slaughtered by shooting. We should 100% fix this with a 1CP strat that causes a tiny amount of mortal wounds. That'll solve everything!
Latro_ wrote: Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.
The standard GW over-balance.
Problem: 'Blast' weapons (ie. 1D6 shot weapons, generally, like Battlecannons, Frag Missiles, etc.) aren't very good. They certainly aren't worth their points.
Solution: Make blast weapons get all their hits vs bit units. Now they are worth their points.
Overbalance: They're more effective! Better put their points up.
But you just made them worth their points... *sigh*
Well technically some *cough* Astramilicheese *cough* could do with paying more as they get twice the shooting frim each weapon, unfortunately I suspect your 100% correct and they will remain overcosted to crazy for everyone else.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.
There's a problem with the rules for Falling Back. Units just walk away from combat, and the melee unit gets slaughtered by shooting. We should 100% fix this with a 2CP strat that causes a tiny amount of mortal wounds. That'll solve everything!
I was honestly hoping for a melee version of Overwatch.
Latro_ wrote: Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.
The standard GW over-balance.
Problem: 'Blast' weapons (ie. 1D6 shot weapons, generally, like Battlecannons, Frag Missiles, etc.) aren't very good. They certainly aren't worth their points.
Solution: Make blast weapons get all their hits vs bit units. Now they are worth their points.
Overbalance: They're more effective! Better put their points up.
But you just made them worth their points... *sigh*
Mr Morden wrote: In the feed did they mention if it was only actualy Warlords who give you a refund or also those with Warlord traits from various strats?
They said "Your warlord". I would presume that's only the 1 dude who is officially "the one warlord" and not extra duders you add.
Mr Morden wrote: In the feed did they mention if it was only actualy Warlords who give you a refund or also those with Warlord traits from various strats?
Nothing about traits or strats. The core rules for a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade refund you their cost if your WL is part of that detachment.
I expect dark eldar will have a special rule that it'll be 'any character' etc and other armies will play around with this via the likes of WL traits etc
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.
First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?
Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.
Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.
40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.
This has to be the worst cost to value assessment I have ever read.
You just compared two things of equal cost and claimed the one that provides less value is somehow more effective because the other unit isn't using it's advantage to do a similar role.
Heres a better way to look at your argument here.
You can buy one of two watches.
Both are $100.00 but one is just a time piece while the other is also a dive rated water proof watch.
According to your logic the generic watch is better value because on land the dive watch would be wasting it's dive capability.
Sorry, but I'll always take the dive watch, even if I never go into the water. Because at least I have the capability and it costs me nothing more.
100 points of cultists is not better then 100 points of intercessors. Your still spending 100 points either way, regardless of use. We don't need to worry about opportunity cost in rules because we have a better more measurable standard. Points. And the points tell me that the intercessor is more durable, requires no baby sitting and also has more offensive potential. You defeated your own argument.
BTW the cultists can't be on more then one objective either, they come in minimum units of 10. That means 16 or 17 of them all need to be in the one unit and the leak already told us a unit can only hold one objective.
Best case you can make is that MAYBE and HOPEFULLY this isn't indicative of anything else and it's an edge case. But even if so, what a terrible example to lead a marketing campaign with out of hundreds of data slates.
Mr Morden wrote: In the feed did they mention if it was only actualy Warlords who give you a refund or also those with Warlord traits from various strats?
The warlord is your actual warlord, as per the picture he makes that detachment effectively free if it's a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade. Anything else doesn't get refunded.
Unfortunately unless they have put a massive CP cost on the second codex, which Doesn't sound like it when adding a Knight costs 1-2 CP most 2 faction soups can still gain out of this system
Well done GW soup is truly no longer gaining you CP advantages
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL imagine working for GW and thinking Cut Them Down was a good Strat to add. Absolutely ridiculous how bad that is.
There's a problem with the rules for Falling Back. Units just walk away from combat, and the melee unit gets slaughtered by shooting. We should 100% fix this with a 2CP strat that causes a tiny amount of mortal wounds. That'll solve everything!
I was honestly hoping for a melee version of Overwatch.
Well you got it, but it costs 1cp, and you can only do it once per turn. Dang. Glad I play Night Lords.
We know. He meant universal as just being part of the rules, not a strat.
I would prefer (If we are choosing to stick with the current time consuming method of shooting overwatch) a rule that just...lets your melee units in Engagement Range attack again, hitting on 6s, if a unit falls back from them.
it is so, so bizarre to me that we're utterly married to rolling EVERY SINGLE DIE you have to roll to make a shooting attack every time someone even attempts to charge, but we get this weird shortcut method that, once again, uses Mortal Wounds to make horde units feel more elite than elite units on a once-per-game stratagem.
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.
First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?
Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.
Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.
40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.
This has to be the worst cost to value assessment I have ever read.
You just compared two things of equal cost and claimed the one that provides less value is somehow more effective because the other unit isn't using it's advantage to do a similar role.
Heres a better way to look at your argument here.
You can buy one of two watches.
Both are $100.00 but one is just a time piece while the other is also a dive rated water proof watch.
According to your logic the generic watch is better value because on land the dive watch would be wasting it's dive capability.
Sorry, but I'll always take the dive watch, even if I never go into the water. Because at least I have the capability and it costs me nothing more.
100 points of cultists is not better then 100 points of intercessors. Your still spending 100 points either way, regardless of use. We don't need to worry about opportunity cost in rules because we have a better more measurable standard. Points. And the points tell me that the intercessor is more durable, requires no baby sitting and also has more offensive potential. You defeated your own argument.
BTW the cultists can't be on more then one objective either, they come in minimum units of 10. That means 16 or 17 of them all need to be in the one unit and the leak already told us a unit can only hold one objective.
Best case you can make is that MAYBE and HOPEFULLY this isn't indicative of anything else and it's an edge case. But even if so, what a terrible example to lead a marketing campaign with out of hundreds of data slates.
Opportunity cost means those points weigh out differently for the units involved.
Patrol is a funny one if it gives same CP. You only need 1 HQ and 1 Troops, and you get enough slots to fill army with some tanks, flyers, transports, etc.
And while before I thought there's not enough CP, now 12 CP + 1/turn on 1500, everyone is the Guard.
We know. He meant universal as just being part of the rules, not a strat.
I would prefer (If we are choosing to stick with the current time consuming method of shooting overwatch) a rule that just...lets your melee units in Engagement Range attack again, hitting on 6s, if a unit falls back from them.
it is so, so bizarre to me that we're utterly married to rolling EVERY SINGLE DIE you have to roll to make a shooting attack every time someone even attempts to charge, but we get this weird shortcut method that, once again, uses Mortal Wounds to make horde units feel more elite than elite units on a once-per-game stratagem.
Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog
tneva82 wrote: lol. People always go "just wait" and 99% times just wait results in "just wait" group being proven wrong, again.
If you don't wait you run some chance of being angry for no reason, or of being angry for the wrong reasons. If you wait until you get the full picture, you can be sure to be angry 100% for the right reasons .
ClockworkZion wrote: We could see AoS 3" engagement range so weapon ranges make more sense.
If this happens, the interaction with the inferno pistol may be weird. Possible "You can only go with 3" of an enemy model during the assault phase" meaning you cannot go into melta range with the inferno pistol, except if you charged or were charged on a previous turn.
Though maybe they'll errata it specifically?
I'm currently cautiously optimistic here. What we've seen seems nice, and I usually am not very confident in GW, but when I look just below my computer screen, I see some PLASTIC SISTERS OF BATTLE all around my desk, so who knows? Who the frozen over hell knows what the future is made of???
One thing I wondr about is the changes to moral.
We don't know them yet (we know there ARE changes though), and they might make larger units more valuable.
Also, possibly the value of the lower-cap of the unit (60 for cultists, 100 for intercessors) might be of some value for some reason?
Seeing today's stratagem, higher model count does more with it, and in general we know starts (and buffs in general) tends to be more impactful the higher the model count of the target unit. it is possible that some yet-unknown combination of changes to the core rules make sheer body-count be more valuable than it used to be.
Equally possible cultists are getting screwed over, again. nobody would be shocked.
We know. He meant universal as just being part of the rules, not a strat.
I would prefer (If we are choosing to stick with the current time consuming method of shooting overwatch) a rule that just...lets your melee units in Engagement Range attack again, hitting on 6s, if a unit falls back from them.
it is so, so bizarre to me that we're utterly married to rolling EVERY SINGLE DIE you have to roll to make a shooting attack every time someone even attempts to charge, but we get this weird shortcut method that, once again, uses Mortal Wounds to make horde units feel more elite than elite units on a once-per-game stratagem.
Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog
Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?
Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?
I'd be okay with a significant overhaul to overwatch personally and would rather them go that route than basically giving another type of "overwatch" from CC retreating. Overwatch might just become a strat like this one as well. At the very least I hope they remove rerolls from overwatch to speed it up
We know. He meant universal as just being part of the rules, not a strat.
I would prefer (If we are choosing to stick with the current time consuming method of shooting overwatch) a rule that just...lets your melee units in Engagement Range attack again, hitting on 6s, if a unit falls back from them.
it is so, so bizarre to me that we're utterly married to rolling EVERY SINGLE DIE you have to roll to make a shooting attack every time someone even attempts to charge, but we get this weird shortcut method that, once again, uses Mortal Wounds to make horde units feel more elite than elite units on a once-per-game stratagem.
Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog
Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?
A thought crossed my mind: overwatch might also be a stratagem.
Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?
We know. He meant universal as just being part of the rules, not a strat.
I would prefer (If we are choosing to stick with the current time consuming method of shooting overwatch) a rule that just...lets your melee units in Engagement Range attack again, hitting on 6s, if a unit falls back from them.
it is so, so bizarre to me that we're utterly married to rolling EVERY SINGLE DIE you have to roll to make a shooting attack every time someone even attempts to charge, but we get this weird shortcut method that, once again, uses Mortal Wounds to make horde units feel more elite than elite units on a once-per-game stratagem.
Extra attacks on 6's would take so long to do though, with units such as boyz. It's like getting overwatched by aggressors, it's just not that fun for either player and ends up feeling like a slog
Yeah, except we're keeping one of those things in the game and refusing to add the other. How come that be?
A thought crossed my mind: overwatch might also be a stratagem.
Latro_ wrote: The pts are not going to be the same. Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.
edit: actully i think that was mentioned in yesterdays stream
Yes. And so far point changes have favoured marines. Marine bias in gw is damn strong atm
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?
And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?
And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.
First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?
Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.
Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.
40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.
This has to be the worst cost to value assessment I have ever read.
You just compared two things of equal cost and claimed the one that provides less value is somehow more effective because the other unit isn't using it's advantage to do a similar role.
Heres a better way to look at your argument here.
You can buy one of two watches.
Both are $100.00 but one is just a time piece while the other is also a dive rated water proof watch.
According to your logic the generic watch is better value because on land the dive watch would be wasting it's dive capability.
Sorry, but I'll always take the dive watch, even if I never go into the water. Because at least I have the capability and it costs me nothing more.
100 points of cultists is not better then 100 points of intercessors. Your still spending 100 points either way, regardless of use. We don't need to worry about opportunity cost in rules because we have a better more measurable standard. Points. And the points tell me that the intercessor is more durable, requires no baby sitting and also has more offensive potential. You defeated your own argument.
BTW the cultists can't be on more then one objective either, they come in minimum units of 10. That means 16 or 17 of them all need to be in the one unit and the leak already told us a unit can only hold one objective.
Best case you can make is that MAYBE and HOPEFULLY this isn't indicative of anything else and it's an edge case. But even if so, what a terrible example to lead a marketing campaign with out of hundreds of data slates.
Opportunity cost means those points weigh out differently for the units involved.
Opportunity cost means I give up one thing in order have some other mutually exclusive thing. I can't swap my cultists for intercessors, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.
Your argument basically boils down to this:
Armies that have better units should pay less for them because their pts are worth more than armies with worse units.
I hope we can all see why this is wrong on its face. My fear is that someone in the design studio decided this reasoning was sound.
I'm not declaring that All Is Lost and the meta will 100% still be marine-dominated, but I am getting heavy flashbacks to 8th, when they steadily revealed the new blasts, the new fall back rules, the new morale system, Overwatch rules, and the part of the community that liked melee was asking
"uh, hey GW, how does melee work? How do you melee? GW?"
and their only answer was "Don't worry about it, melee will be great, 8th will be the best edition for melee ever, pinky swear!"
"So did you fix the issues like random charge rolls then? Is that how melee is fixed?"
"Youll have to read the full rules to find out!!!! we can't spoil everything for you. Now, let's talk about how flamers autohit on overwatch scorin their full effectiveness...and how units can interrupt to fight back..and how you can shoot in melee with pistols but not on the turn you charge..."
Ahh so that's were my Déja-vu feeling was coming from.
I hope it's not the case but still.
that is eeeeerrily similar.
Yeah and 99% times it's spot on how it looks at first. Gw doesn'' make things complex. Simple game and effects on game balance easy to see even for elementary school kid
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?
And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!
The ability to shoot obscured models maybe?
Yeah, those would be cool additions! I don't think it was linked, article on the new art: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/the-art-of-new40k/ I quite like the "page furniture" at the bottom. Some of them do evoke a big H.R. Giger's work to me, and I'd be pretty interested in what Giger would have done with 40k. Sadly we'll never know, RIP.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Overwatch has been a big part of what made flame weapon relevant. If it disappear/becomes a stratagem, I hope they get something else in return. Maybe the new rules to get max shots on big units?
And, like, remove cover perhaps? The one thing they should excel at!
The ability to shoot obscured models maybe?
Yeah, those would be cool additions!
I don't think it was linked, article on the new art:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/04/the-art-of-new40k/ I quite like the "page furniture" at the bottom. Some of them do evoke a big H.R. Giger's work to me, and I'd be pretty interested in what Giger would have done with 40k. Sadly we'll never know, RIP.
Damn! That's pretty cool! I was skeptical at the first image, but my face was kind of like that Vince Mcmahon meme as I scrolled down.
Latro_ wrote: Forgot to say there was mention of every weapon getting adjusted too. They specifically hinted at the fact blast weapons are gonna get him with a bigger pts bump than anything else to account for their new rules.
The standard GW over-balance.
Problem: 'Blast' weapons (ie. 1D6 shot weapons, generally, like Battlecannons, Frag Missiles, etc.) aren't very good. They certainly aren't worth their points.
Solution: Make blast weapons get all their hits vs bit units. Now they are worth their points.
Overbalance: They're more effective! Better put their points up.
But you just made them worth their points... *sigh*
Well technically some *cough* Astramilicheese *cough* could do with paying more as they get twice the shooting frim each weapon, unfortunately I suspect your 100% correct and they will remain overcosted to crazy for everyone else.
Of course depending on unit size first salvo can drop the horde status and back to d6 shots
Cut theme down seems awful as a stratagem, should have been just a rule to add some minor risk to falling back. It doesn't even really add a deterrent for fleeing from singular powerful models.
Opportunity cost means I give up one thing in order have some other mutually exclusive thing. I can't swap my cultists for intercessors, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.
Your argument basically boils down to this:
Armies that have better units should pay less for them because their pts are worth more than armies with worse units.
I hope we can all see why this is wrong on its face. My fear is that someone in the design studio decided this reasoning was sound.
That's not what I was trying to say at all. I was saying a points hike impacts an elite army more than a horde army. But go on and bang that gong I guess.
So, this was just posted in a discord I'm in, from a Playester, this was in response to someone saying that the detachment's taking away points puts Tau in a tough spot with their 1 commander per detachment rule:
"don’t worry. Other factions will find themselves in the same predicament msn-wink.gif.
The one it is the weirdest for is D.eldar Kabal because they only have Arcons so they get locked into two arcons or running a mixed list.
So excited they finally put this one out there. Finally an end to soup lol"
Take it with a grain of salt, but this is the same playtester I've mentioned before who spoke about the Judicar's name before it was officially revealed, as well as the rules for it.
I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
ClockworkZion wrote: I feel like people are overlooking the numbers game hordes play.
First off, the more expensive a model is the less valuable secondaries that require actions are to that model's army. Which has a higher opportunity cost to no shoot or fight: 16 cultists or 5 Intercessors?
Intercessors hands down. 100 pts of Marine is at a greater disadvantage not engaging enemy units than 96pts of Cultists.
Horde units can cap more points with cheap troops units and quickly max secondaries in a game meaning it can be a lot harder for an Elite player to catch up, especially if the horde can deny easy secondaries for Marines by keeping their scoring units away from the Los and charge range of the Marines early game.
40k is also a game that favors weight of dice. Forcing elite units to take more saves than they can kill models wins games.
This has to be the worst cost to value assessment I have ever read.
You just compared two things of equal cost and claimed the one that provides less value is somehow more effective because the other unit isn't using it's advantage to do a similar role.
Heres a better way to look at your argument here.
You can buy one of two watches.
Both are $100.00 but one is just a time piece while the other is also a dive rated water proof watch.
According to your logic the generic watch is better value because on land the dive watch would be wasting it's dive capability.
Sorry, but I'll always take the dive watch, even if I never go into the water. Because at least I have the capability and it costs me nothing more.
100 points of cultists is not better then 100 points of intercessors. Your still spending 100 points either way, regardless of use. We don't need to worry about opportunity cost in rules because we have a better more measurable standard. Points. And the points tell me that the intercessor is more durable, requires no baby sitting and also has more offensive potential. You defeated your own argument.
BTW the cultists can't be on more then one objective either, they come in minimum units of 10. That means 16 or 17 of them all need to be in the one unit and the leak already told us a unit can only hold one objective.
Best case you can make is that MAYBE and HOPEFULLY this isn't indicative of anything else and it's an edge case. But even if so, what a terrible example to lead a marketing campaign with out of hundreds of data slates.
Opportunity cost means those points weigh out differently for the units involved.
No, no it doesn't lol.
100 points IS the measure. Either way your dedicating 100 points. Your trying really hard to make the better value look worse. Marines in your example at least have options the cultists don't. But that won't stop you from banging your head against the wall trying to claim the marines are wasted.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
small_gods wrote: Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
5 mortal wounds? That's 5 6's. That means you need 30 dice to get that result. How many units in HTH combat are going to have 30 models after getting up the table, charging into combat, and surviving return attacks?
Frankly if you're spending CP on 'Cut Them Down' you're helping me win the game by wasting your CP.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Sure. I'll be sure to use this one when I have 30 ork boyz within Engagement Range of a leviathan dreadnought, didn't remember to use any of them to surround it so it can't fall back, and my opponent chooses to fall back and give up his shooting with the leviathan dread to fall back instead of just shooting me in close combat which we know he can now do.
Opportunity cost means I give up one thing in order have some other mutually exclusive thing. I can't swap my cultists for intercessors, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.
Your argument basically boils down to this:
Armies that have better units should pay less for them because their pts are worth more than armies with worse units.
I hope we can all see why this is wrong on its face. My fear is that someone in the design studio decided this reasoning was sound.
That's not what I was trying to say at all. I was saying a points hike impacts an elite army more than a horde army. But go on and bang that gong I guess.
Thats also not true at all. Like demonstrably false. You pay the hike on a per model bases which means the inverse is more likely. If I have 100 models that all go up a point or 10 models that go up a point I just spent 10 times more based on volume. The only way to combat that is by making the adjustments proportional to cost. Two problems arrise from that, the first one assumes the initial data points were balanced, which is something we KNOW is not true. Cultists are objectively worth far less using current point levels in 8th as of now. The secodn issue is that GW DID give an example and they inverted the percentages. Somehow they managed to make the worse unit with higher numbers increase by double the percentage of the lower model count, better value unit.
Opportunity cost means I give up one thing in order have some other mutually exclusive thing. I can't swap my cultists for intercessors, so I don't see how this is relevant at all.
Your argument basically boils down to this:
Armies that have better units should pay less for them because their pts are worth more than armies with worse units.
I hope we can all see why this is wrong on its face. My fear is that someone in the design studio decided this reasoning was sound.
That's not what I was trying to say at all. I was saying a points hike impacts an elite army more than a horde army. But go on and bang that gong I guess.
If I have 30 guys, who go up by 3 points each, I need to drop 90 points from elsewhere to make them fit still.
If I have 50 guys, who go up by 2 points each, I need to drop 100 points from elsewhere to make them still fit.
Hordes are hit HARDER by points increases, since they have more models.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: It's almost like the internet's full of people determined to be angry/miserable!
It's not like dakka to be overwhelming negative about a game that many people enjoy is it?
Yet here you both are, funny that.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The forums not full of people committed to being perpetually miserable and angry have rules against certain leaks, so I pop in, check the scoop, and laugh at people hating the thing they "love".
Glass houses mate. Your painting every one with a differing opinion to yours as an other. If you think so poorly on the forum, maybe showing up to point and laugh to get your rocks off is not the healthiest activity. I mean, if only there were a community page directly provided by the source to get all your information from with no other outside opinions. If only right? Oh wait
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Nothing is ever really 'free'. You have to deal with opportunity cost. Using that CP on cut them down means you can't use it on anything else. That said, in a critical moment against an important target, it may make up it's value just by peeling a few wounds off an important target.
If I flee a unit of 30 Gretchin or Termagants I take potentially 5 Mortal wounds, If I flee a unit of 6 Assault Centurions I take 1 mortal wound?
Who is signing off on this terrible design?
And in what world do you ever get 30 Ork boyz intact into an enemy and all in engaged anyway??
This has been extensively play tested by people who know the game and this is the end result?
I'm not pooping on the whole edition as i like a lot of what I'm hearing but how do things like this still slip through?
no mate its the other way round. It does not matter what you flee with, if you flee FROM 10 boyz they get 10d6 chances, if you flee FROM 5 marines they get 5d6 chances.
Its just a crap useless strat allround. which worries us CC players because it means they have accounted it as a + for CC when they consider their balance vs shooting when in reality no one is ever going to use it.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Sure. I'll be sure to use this one when I have 30 ork boyz within Engagement Range of a leviathan dreadnought, didn't remember to use any of them to surround it so it can't fall back, and my opponent chooses to fall back and give up his shooting with the leviathan dread to fall back instead of just shooting me in close combat which we know he can now do.
So you can't forsee a situation where you charge a marine gunline of 10 intersessors with a Levi dead tucked behind to be in a reroll aura. Where you kill the intersessors, pile in tag and consolidate near that Levi dread? Or fire warriors and a lion cannon riptide? Or when you play do people generally leave their key units without any screen?
small_gods wrote: Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
5 mortal wounds? That's 5 6's. That means you need 30 dice to get that result. How many units in HTH combat are going to have 30 models after getting up the table, charging into combat, and surviving return attacks?
Frankly if you're spending CP on 'Cut Them Down' you're helping me win the game by wasting your CP.
It also doesn't synergize with success. By that I mean not only did I need 30 orks to get into combat and remain in range, but they also presumably failed to kill that target. I would have much rather seen a strat to consolidate farther or back into cover etc.
If I flee a unit of 30 Gretchin or Termagants I take potentially 5 Mortal wounds, If I flee a unit of 6 Assault Centurions I take 1 mortal wound?
Who is signing off on this terrible design?
And in what world do you ever get 30 Ork boyz intact into an enemy and all in engaged anyway??
This has been extensively play tested by people who know the game and this is the end result?
I'm not pooping on the whole edition as i like a lot of what I'm hearing but how do things like this still slip through?
This new rule was penned by DA GLORIOUS GROTVOLUSHUN.
"aha, primaris hellblasters, so you choose to flee in terror from us lowly grots. Little do you know that upon you turning your backs, our S2 Ap- fists become FACE MELTING LAZORS!"
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Vehicles can shoot in combat now. Leviathan don't need to fall back and if anything you are protecting it from being shot at by the opponent's army now!
I hate mortal wound mechanics because they create strange situations impossible under normal condition. 30 grots charging a custodes unit won't do any meaningful damage until the custodes fall back to grab an objective, then they take wounds without the possibility of saves with all that expensive gear.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Vehicles can shoot in combat now. Leviathan don't need to fall back and if anything you are protecting it from being shot at by the opponent's army now!
Yea there is, I won't get my hopes up though since I remember the xenos collage in the 5th edition rulebook. Would love to see a Xenos coaltion of races as a faction. I wished that was where tau was taken, but they went with gundam light mecha instead. Maybe they will expand that way, it would make sense reading their fluff at least. I want Terrelian Dog soldiers!
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Vehicles can shoot in combat now. Leviathan don't need to fall back and if anything you are protecting it from being shot at by the opponent's army now!
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
No reason? It costs 1 cp. I'm rarely flooding with cp and unless people start playing 2001 pts i will have less cp than before and some are at the end when game over.
I can sure use 1cp and hope for best. Or spend 1cp elsewhere for bigger impact.
If I flee a unit of 30 Gretchin or Termagants I take potentially 5 Mortal wounds, If I flee a unit of 6 Assault Centurions I take 1 mortal wound?
Who is signing off on this terrible design?
And in what world do you ever get 30 Ork boyz intact into an enemy and all in engaged anyway??
This has been extensively play tested by people who know the game and this is the end result?
I'm not pooping on the whole edition as i like a lot of what I'm hearing but how do things like this still slip through?
no mate its the other way round. It does not matter what you flee with, if you flee FROM 10 boyz they get 10d6 chances, if you flee FROM 5 marines they get 5d6 chances.
Its just a crap useless strat allround. which worries us CC players because it means they have accounted it as a + for CC when they consider their balance vs shooting when in reality no one is ever going to use it.
I meant If I flee from 30 Gretchin I take on average 5 mortal wounds, If I flee from 6 Assault Centurions I take on average 1 mortal wound. Should have worded it better.
Point I was trying to make is that it seems daft to me that its just about unit size not the close combat quality of the unit you are trying to escape from.
As an Ork player Its very rare that i get a full unit of 30 Ork Lads into combat anyway, due to base size, terrain, choke points and the size of enemy units. So I don't even think its particularly good for horde players in the first place.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Sweet summer child, you really think you will get 30 models to roll these 5 "6" resulting in 6 mortal wounds ? Space on the board and charge distances will make this nigh impossiblet. Also, in 8th a riptide costs as much as 30 orks, so you will be pouring CP in losing trade between a CC unit and a shooting unit -by the time you get in CC the riptide will have already shot stuff down, so losing trade-, and acolytes are 20 max. Demons i dunno.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Except orks don't cause 5 in average. Especially vs single models. A) casualties b) you aren"t in range. I rarely get more than 20 or so and that's vs bigger than 1 model unit. And then casualties.
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Vehicles can shoot in combat now. Leviathan don't need to fall back and if anything you are protecting it from being shot at by the opponent's army now!
Smellingsalts wrote: I see all of the complaints about "Cut Them Down". While I can't argue with the math, I would just point out that this is a game of dice, that's why you roll them. You could get lucky and beat the odds, heck you could roll Yahtzee. So really, no reason not to try. As for CP, Soup is dead. Tournament players will likely be running mono armies, and 12 points is a lot of command points. Plus, you will get 1 per turn that you didn't get before, so go ahead and use "Cut Them Down", it's effectively free.
Yeah, except it's in competition with an average of like 30 strats per faction at this point. and it's one of the worst ones.
Not for Orks, daemons, genestealer cult etc. 5 mortal wounds to finish of that riptide or leviathan dread is pretty handy. So it's situational, not useless, but luckily you have those 30 other starts to use if it doesn't work for your army.
Sweet summer child, you really think you will get 30 models to roll these 5 "6" resulting in 6 mortal wounds ? Space on the board and charge distances will make this nigh impossiblet. Also, in 8th a riptide costs as much as 30 orks, so you will be pouring CP in losing trade between a CC unit and a shooting unit -by the time you get in CC the riptide will have already shot stuff down, so losing trade-, and acolytes are 20 max. Demons i dunno.
Also Marines get a Strat to give a 5+++ against Mortal Wounds.
Red Corsair wrote: I hate mortal wound mechanics because they create strange situations impossible under normal condition. 30 grots charging a custodes unit won't do any meaningful damage until the custodes fall back to grab an objective, then they take wounds without the possibility of saves with all that expensive gear.
This is exactly why I wish Gw woukd stop seeing handing out mortal wounds like candy as the answer.
If you want a faster game how about ditching reroll your reroll of a reroll aura's and doubel shooting russes they take way more time to resolve.
He is so cool, that I will use him in all of my armies. HE is my new Waifu.
edition because of some 
we can't spoil everything for you. Now, let's talk about how flamers autohit on overwatch scorin their full effectiveness...and how units can interrupt to fight back..and how you can shoot in melee with pistols but not on the turn you charge..."
