Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's like deepstrike except:
It requires a model who can summon them to do so.
It requires that model be in a position on the board where it is useful to summon.
It requires you pass a psychic test to access some of your army.
It requires you spend more points than what the unit you summon is worth (unless you're a real life wizard who can set aside a number of points that is perfect for every unit configuration)
Most if this is also true of the old summoning rules, but the models were free, so it didn't put you at a large disadvantage like this does.
But free models really wasn't fair too. So basically what I'm saying is that summoning NEEDED a nerf, but let's not pretend that these summoning rules are in anyway really good.
And you get to change what you deliver, where you want to deliver to exactly what you need at that time.
It's also not like the psyker is completely wasted points.
Sorry, your argument doesn't add up.
You can already do that. Example is GSC can summon from a range of units, with any weapon combination.
Plus that doesn't invalidate any of my points at all. It's a bonus sure, But the net result is that summoning is a worse option than just picking a flexible unit and deepstriking.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Now I can kind of see what some people have been saying, about being worried that tournament gamers are helping so much to refine the rules. People always say that a tightly balanced set of tournament friendly rules benefits everyone, including the more narrative gamers. But now I'm thinking that's not really true.
I'm starting to suspect that a lot of the little details that don't make sense are in there for "balance" or tournament purposes. For example, someone probably noticed that the striking scorpions aren't good against space marines. Because most armies have space marines in them, they pointed out that nobody is going to take striking scorpions to a tournament unless they can do something in a game against a space marine army. So they make mandiblasters cause mortal wounds to make them a more attractive choice to the tournament gamer, while not making any sense and breaking a bit of the immersion for some of the more narrative gamers that play the game in order to experience the background on the tabletop.
I like a lot of the major changes to the rules, but whether or not I enjoy the game will probably come down to the missions and all the little details on the individual units. And I'm beginning to worry that they are going to get a lot of the details wrong in their willingness to sacrifice immersion for balance.
+1
I hope you are wrong, but I also have picked up on this when they said orders are automatic for Guard. I know they are trying to streamline but still...
ClockworkZion wrote: I mentioned it a few times but Mortal Wounds may be taking the place of rending. mandiblasters rendingnthrough he weak points of armour is super duper fluffy.
But we already saw a rending weapon in the soulreaper cannon. It just had -1 AP more than expected; none of this mortal wounds nonsense.
Because all weapons never change rules like how sniper weapons never lost rending or pinning. Oh wait.
New edition, new rules, weapons based more on their fluff to determine their crunch.
Except we already saw with mandiblaster they don't care about fluff.
As far as point article. No surprises except seems gw got rid of fixation to multiples of 5.
Also seems they missed golden opportunity to rescale points. With decades of constant price decreases bottom scale is getting crowded. Standard point size doubled and all points roughly doubled would have been good
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
Considering it's 2d6 drop the lowest at 12" vs EVERYTHING and is only -1 BS to move and shoot with, it's worth around that much.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
Power levels are great for getting new players into the game. You can just set a determined Power level of there army and work on points tweeking and optimization later if they decide on more competitive gaming....this is a win win IMHO.
kestral wrote: Power and Point stuff looks good, and I like the idea of sideboards. I hope they apply it to all armies in some form.
Some armies do have a limited form of 'summoning'. For example, the Necron Canoptek Spyder's 'Scarab Hive' rule which allows the spyder to create scarabs would be a form of summoning.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's like deepstrike except:
It requires a model who can summon them to do so.
It requires that model be in a position on the board where it is useful to summon.
It requires you pass a psychic test to access some of your army.
It requires you spend more points than what the unit you summon is worth (unless you're a real life wizard who can set aside a number of points that is perfect for every unit configuration)
Most if this is also true of the old summoning rules, but the models were free, so it didn't put you at a large disadvantage like this does.
But free models really wasn't fair too. So basically what I'm saying is that summoning NEEDED a nerf, but let's not pretend that these summoning rules are in anyway really good.
And you get to change what you deliver, where you want to deliver to exactly what you need at that time.
It's also not like the psyker is completely wasted points.
Sorry, your argument doesn't add up.
You can already do that. Example is GSC can summon from a range of units, with any weapon combination.
Plus that doesn't invalidate any of my points at all. It's a bonus sure, But the net result is that summoning is a worse option than just picking a flexible unit and deepstriking.
Your point is generally that it's not automatic... well, no. You need to use tactics, sure.
At which point you get to summon what you need where you need it. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact it isn't useless.
"For example, if you’re playing the “Ambush” mission, the side with the highest total Power Level for their army will always play the role of the attacker, where the smaller enemy force will need to escape the trap."
I'm really liking the idea of Power Level as a quick and easy approach to the game. If a friend and I bring out some models we want to play with and I end up with 85 and he has 110, then we can just go to the list of scenarios made for unequal power levels and play one of them.
This might be a really great tool for busting up the "play every game like it's a round in a tournament" mindset that dominates some areas.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
Yes
Interesting. I do hope this only affect summoned units (daemons, etc) and not Reserve as a whole...
That's exactly how it works in AoS so very likely.
Daemon players have no room to whine. I've had opponents summon damn near half the point value of the original army size. Summoning needed to be nerfed.
I like how they did it. And to an earlier poster, you most definitely can set aside exact points for summoning. Just pre select the units you will bring. But that will kill your ability to adapt.
Breng77 wrote: What they didn't mention and I am keen to know is - are the points for weapons consistent across all units that can use that weapon?
My hope is that they are not
My guess: Inside of an army they likely are, but between different armies they'll likely see different points costs. S6 powerfists aren't the same value as an S8 powerfist afterAll.
My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
Why you think 40k summoning is more useful than aos where it went to oblivion?
nintura wrote: 27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
The MM can now move and shoot at only -1 BS instead of snap shooting. It also now has split fire.
That's a huge advantage over 7th. That's why they are more expensive.
I do like the concept of power levels. It'll really be useful when trying to introduce someone to the game. "Oh. You want an introductory game and brought a box of Tacticals, a Librarian, and a Rhino? That's about PL 200. I'll bring twenty Necron Warriors and five Immortals. That's about the same. No. Don't worry about weapon costs and bonus powers right now. We'll get to that next game."
frozenwastes wrote: "For example, if you’re playing the “Ambush” mission, the side with the highest total Power Level for their army will always play the role of the attacker, where the smaller enemy force will need to escape the trap."
I'm really liking the idea of Power Level as a quick and easy approach to the game. If a friend and I bring out some models we want to play with and I end up with 85 and he has 110, then we can just go to the list of scenarios made for unequal power levels and play one of them.
This might be a really great tool for busting up the "play every game like it's a round in a tournament" mindset that dominates some areas.
I'm sure it will depend on players, but for quick pick-up casual games I like the power idea because you can quickly put something together and don't need to have lists for every possible point value. So if I show up and a new guy only has what would amount to 750 points, we can just play power level and grab a quick and dirty game. Maybe using an unbalanced scenario like ambush etc. I also think it works really well for things like Apocalypse level games where granular points really don't matter it would be much faster to say each side gets 1000 points (or whatever) and go at it without costing out all the options for every unit.
The summoning rules are (once again) right out of Age of Sigmar. They work except for one instance. When models summon other models are removed in the process. You have to pay for the full cost of the new model but don't get any discount for losing the model you sacrificed to summon it.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
Why you think 40k summoning is more useful than aos where it went to oblivion?
Honestly I think Summoning is fine in AoS, and it's something that, if explored, could be a perfectly fine competitive list. Death already uses it in tourney lists, though generally just for Morghasts.
frozenwastes wrote: The summoning rules are (once again) right out of Age of Sigmar. They work except for one instance. When models summon other models are removed in the process. You have to pay for the full cost of the new model but don't get any discount for losing the model you sacrificed to summon it.
Question - in AoS can you pay for upgrades in the summoned unit?
IE, can you give rewards to a greater daemon you summoned if you pay the points?
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
Why you think 40k summoning is more useful than aos where it went to oblivion?
This isn't AoS. Also, I've never played AoS. The game, despite having similar mechanics, will not play the same. Therefore it will have different requirements, and the outcome and needs will be different.
Breng77 wrote: What they didn't mention and I am keen to know is - are the points for weapons consistent across all units that can use that weapon?
My hope is that they are not
My guess: Inside of an army they likely are, but between different armies they'll likely see different points costs. S6 powerfists aren't the same value as an S8 powerfist afterAll.
I mean I'd take this but I'd prefer they cost more on better units even within an army as a BS5 Melta gun isn't the same value as a BS4 melta gun. You are probably right as it would make things much less complicated though.
frozenwastes wrote: The summoning rules are (once again) right out of Age of Sigmar. They work except for one instance. When models summon other models are removed in the process. You have to pay for the full cost of the new model but don't get any discount for losing the model you sacrificed to summon it.
Doesn't usually hurt to bring more than one. There are also plenty of AoS abilities that bring models on without needing to cast.
frozenwastes wrote: The summoning rules are (once again) right out of Age of Sigmar. They work except for one instance. When models summon other models are removed in the process. You have to pay for the full cost of the new model but don't get any discount for losing the model you sacrificed to summon it.
Question - in AoS can you pay for upgrades in the summoned unit?
IE, can you give rewards to a greater daemon you summoned if you pay the points?
In AoS there's no points for Wargear sorts.. So yes, in a way.
frozenwastes wrote: The summoning rules are (once again) right out of Age of Sigmar. They work except for one instance. When models summon other models are removed in the process. You have to pay for the full cost of the new model but don't get any discount for losing the model you sacrificed to summon it.
Question - in AoS can you pay for upgrades in the summoned unit?
IE, can you give rewards to a greater daemon you summoned if you pay the points?
There are no upgrade points in AoS, you just have what's on the sheet. Essentially how Power Levels will work in NewHammer.
I'm betting with 40k you'll have to work that out at the time of summoning, or will only summon in baseline units.
Breng77 wrote: I'm sure it will depend on players, but for quick pick-up casual games I like the power idea because you can quickly put something together and don't need to have lists for every possible point value. So if I show up and a new guy only has what would amount to 750 points, we can just play power level and grab a quick and dirty game. Maybe using an unbalanced scenario like ambush etc. I also think it works really well for things like Apocalypse level games where granular points really don't matter it would be much faster to say each side gets 1000 points (or whatever) and go at it without costing out all the options for every unit.
I think it'll be really useful. It's definitely faster than the Age of Sigmar points because of the much, much lower numbers. I'm sure there are some superspecial individuals on here that will look down on people for finding single digit numbers faster than adding 120 + 80 + 170 until they get to 1500, but for the average person it's going to be way faster.
I think you're right about the apocalypse level games. As well as "bring and battle" type multiplayer events.
frozenwastes wrote: The summoning rules are (once again) right out of Age of Sigmar. They work except for one instance. When models summon other models are removed in the process. You have to pay for the full cost of the new model but don't get any discount for losing the model you sacrificed to summon it.
seems like this might be slightly mitigated in 40k with the characters not being targetable. As long as the cast value for summoning is not too high I think it would be fine.
Ratius wrote: Does anyone really use books these days to build an army?
Ive been using armybuilder and battlescribe for years and cant imagine going back to books.
Build your army and print it with the associated costs/stats/rules.
Simples.
Breng77 wrote: I'm sure it will depend on players, but for quick pick-up casual games I like the power idea because you can quickly put something together and don't need to have lists for every possible point value. So if I show up and a new guy only has what would amount to 750 points, we can just play power level and grab a quick and dirty game. Maybe using an unbalanced scenario like ambush etc. I also think it works really well for things like Apocalypse level games where granular points really don't matter it would be much faster to say each side gets 1000 points (or whatever) and go at it without costing out all the options for every unit.
I think it'll be really useful. It's definitely faster than the Age of Sigmar points because of the much, much lower numbers. I'm sure there are some superspecial individuals on here that will look down on people for finding single digit numbers faster than adding 120 + 80 + 170 until they get to 1500, but for the average person it's going to be way faster.
I think you're right about the apocalypse level games. As well as "bring and battle" type multiplayer events.
To me it is less the math being faster as the lack of options being lower. I don't have to think about if I have points for my melta gun, power fist, 6 models instead of 5 etc. So if I am playing 100 power I can simply find units that add up to close to that level. So if a rubric squad is 20 points for 10 models I can take 5 squads and call it a day without worrying about that the models I have are armed with warplamers or a soulreaper.
frozenwastes wrote: The summoning rules are (once again) right out of Age of Sigmar. They work except for one instance. When models summon other models are removed in the process. You have to pay for the full cost of the new model but don't get any discount for losing the model you sacrificed to summon it.
Question - in AoS can you pay for upgrades in the summoned unit?
IE, can you give rewards to a greater daemon you summoned if you pay the points?
In AoS none of the upgrades cost anything, so you just give the summoned unit whatever you want to off their warscroll.
I quite like the summoning rules, I've used them in AoS where you can use them to top units back up and recycle dead ones too although if you have to total points up you do run the risk of giving away more points than you brought! I had a unit of Ripperdactyls die twice in the game!
I'm not sure if that's how it'll work in 40k, but I imagine using power level it won't matter but going by matched play if you want upgrades you'll need the points put aside for them.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
I think it's more of an attempt to attract newer players who are less familiar with the game.
Or put another way, more directly supporting two out of the three new game types.
Besides, when was the last time you sat down and put together a list on paper? That's what the apps are for!
Ah, every time I play the game? I don't use any apps, they cost money, notepad on my computer is free.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
That is my take, yes
Sounds pretty cool. need more horde killing power why not flamers
i do wonder how that will work with necron scarabs
EnTyme wrote: I do like the concept of power levels. It'll really be useful when trying to introduce someone to the game. "Oh. You want an introductory game and brought a box of Tacticals, a Librarian, and a Rhino? That's about PL 200. I'll bring twenty Necron Warriors and five Immortals. That's about the same. No. Don't worry about weapon costs and bonus powers right now. We'll get to that next game."
Yea, but I definitely can see the noob saying, after the game, "WOW multi-melta is awesome! I'm putting that on ALL my marines next time!"
EnTyme wrote: I do like the concept of power levels. It'll really be useful when trying to introduce someone to the game. "Oh. You want an introductory game and brought a box of Tacticals, a Librarian, and a Rhino? That's about PL 200. I'll bring twenty Necron Warriors and five Immortals. That's about the same. No. Don't worry about weapon costs and bonus powers right now. We'll get to that next game."
Yea, but I definitely can see the noob saying, after the game, "WOW multi-melta is awesome! I'm putting that on ALL my marines next time!"
And we say "Not so fast, son..."
Well it would make a great way to get them into how to build for matched play.
I'm thinking that power levels might be the more go-to play method for casual play since they have missions designed around people playing via unbalanced Power Levels (wonder if Sanctuary 101 with Necrons and Sisters will get a faction specific mission like that).
Its almost like Power was for people who just showed up at the game store with the models they have on hand and just want to play a game(heaven forbid that you only have a multimelta model instead of a heavy bolter model because of points)
Points are for when you pre-plan your game and can make sure you have the right models ready to go.
I really like it. Makes pick up games easier while still allowing for you to tailor your list in advance.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
That is my take, yes
Which makes summoning the most versatile style of play actually. Your opponents will dictate what you need. If they are smart and sacrificed models are a thing then they could let you deduct the points of a summon from those sacrifices... Hmmmmm
Or they could allow units like Tyranids generate an "income" which we could call "Bio-Mass" and allow them to use that to deduct points from the summoning *cough* Birthing *cough* of baby guants
I feel like a good tactic for summoning in 8th edition is going to be along the lines of:
--Somehow deepstrike/outflank with the summoner and a unit of guys to guard him.
--Summon units either in that turn or next turn when you can get closer
--Pelt the back line with the guard units, summoner's psychic powers, and the new beasts you brought in unless you have MORE summoning to do.
This could even work by multiple units coming in the same way to summon a whole army on the back lines without the enemy expecting it/knowing what exactly is coming.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
That is my take, yes
Which makes summoning the most versatile style of play actually. Your opponents will dictate what you need. If they are smart and sacrificed models are a thing then they could let you deduct the points of a summon from those sacrifices... Hmmmmm
Or they could allow units like Tyranids generate an "income" which we could call "Bio-Mass" and allow them to use that to deduct points from the summoning *cough* Birthing *cough* of baby guants
Someone else explained this earlier, but when it's an ability like the whole splits for Horrors it's not supposed to cost points.
I would imagine Gaunts brought in from Tervigons would be the same thing.
Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).
Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.
Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.
mmzero252 wrote: I feel like a good tactic for summoning in 8th edition is going to be along the lines of:
--Somehow deepstrike/outflank with the summoner and a unit of guys to guard him.
--Summon units either in that turn or next turn when you can get closer
--Pelt the back line with the guard units, summoner's psychic powers, and the new beasts you brought in unless you have MORE summoning to do.
This could even work by multiple units coming in the same way to summon a whole army on the back lines without the enemy expecting it/knowing what exactly is coming.
Sounds like how Daemons should work... Could be dangerous if an alpha strike happens though
ClockworkZion wrote: Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).
Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.
Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.
I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.
ClockworkZion wrote: Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).
Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.
Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.
I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.
I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.
Ah, every time I play the game? I don't use any apps, they cost money, notepad on my computer is free.
GW acquired scrollbuilder.com and is keeping it free.
Battlescribe is also free, but I use the books whenever I can. I'm faster with pen and paper than any app or ebook.
I'm a bit surpassed to see 13 point marines. I think I would have set them at 15 and used them as the benchmark for everything else.
From GW's perspective: if you're going to make things die faster and seemingly balance around 2000 points, you increase the cost of the weapons not the units themselves. That way you can have tons of infantry like they seem to want while having specialized units (this unit with the lascannon needs to move over here so I'll screen with my unit of bolters and plasma pistols).
Also if they dropped the price of a grav-pistol from 15 to 7 then a plasma pistol will most likely be around that too, giving us the first hint on why GW keeps telling us Berzerkers are now scary. Imagine if they took the 2 (4 with double on champ) plasma pistol max cap off Berzerkers with these lowered costs and gave their cheaper chainaxes AP -1. Top that off with the charge rules everyone knows they will get and I'm a happy camper. I think it's time to buy some more FW conversions...
Requizen wrote: I'm betting with 40k you'll have to work that out at the time of summoning, or will only summon in baseline units.
For the last half of 7th, I played an army with lots of summoning. In a RTT last weekend I summoned ~900 points in one game. I'm no stranger to summoning
The thing is that the summoned units were always vastly sub-par to those you could start with. 2 Greaters on a D-thirster and the Armor of Skorn make it incredibly more durable. Getting a 4+ FNP means it's nearly twice as hard to kill.
Plague drones with poisoned attacks are significantly more deadly than bare bones drones. An AP2 weapon on the champion drone increases their danger level significantly.
If a CSM character was ever 'lucky' enough to become a DP, he got killed nearly instantly because a DP with no upgrades is just horribad.
If I can summon with the required upgrades, I'm OK with that. It's a variable power pool that I can use to summon what's needed. "Oh, I can use a DP here. How about an exalted flamer there" That can be really useful, if they can be created in a way that is valuable.
ClockworkZion wrote: Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).
Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.
Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.
I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.
I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.
No matter what you call it, it is still free models. I don't have a problem either way if the model assumes a standard output and is costed accordingly. Some games you get more, some less, but we play a randomized game, so that's OK.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Zustiur wrote: I'm a bit surpassed to see 13 point marines. I think I would have set them at 15 and used them as the benchmark for everything else.
I'd probably go with 1 point being equal to the smallest noticeable difference between two models. So if a guardsman is worth one and a third conscripts and a grot is half a guardsman, then one point is half a grot, one third of a conscript and so on. So, going by that standard, a new marine might be worth six and a half grots, which seems about right based on the new rules we've seen.
Of course, it's equally possible that they are basing these pretty closely on the old system and wanted to keep marine units about the same value. Since they upped the relative cost of heavy weapons, the price of the basic guy had to come down to keep the average points total constant.
ClockworkZion wrote: Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).
Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.
Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.
I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.
I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.
No matter what you call it, it is still free models. I don't have a problem either way if the model assumes a standard output and is costed accordingly. Some games you get more, some less, but we play a randomized game, so that's OK.
Returned models to a unit that lost them don't cost anything in AoS, I imagine it's the same here. You can shut that down by removing the unit completely or killing the thing that replenishes them, so it's not a big deal for the most part.
I'm betting that's how Spyders and Tervigons will work now, or at least will be an option for them.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.
My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.
I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?
ClockworkZion wrote: Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).
Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.
Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.
I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.
I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.
No matter what you call it, it is still free models. I don't have a problem either way if the model assumes a standard output and is costed accordingly. Some games you get more, some less, but we play a randomized game, so that's OK.
What I was talking about was making it a transport that can replace dead models in a unit of termagaunts. Not the same as a unit of free models and requires a unit to exist to replace models on.
Kanluwen wrote: Someone else explained this earlier, but when it's an ability like the whole splits for Horrors it's not supposed to cost points.
I would imagine Gaunts brought in from Tervigons would be the same thing.
They're wrong, if we're using AoS as a precedent. Here's the rules as they pertain to Age of Sigmar:
REINFORCEMENT POINTS
Sometimes a spell or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed. In a Pitched Battle, you must set aside some of your points in order to be able to use these units. The points you set aside are called your army’s reinforcement points, and need to be recorded on your army roster.
Each time a unit is added to an army during a battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reinforcement points. If there are not enough points in the pool to pay for the unit, you must either decrease the size of the unit until you have enough points for it, or decide not to use it after all. If you decide not to use the unit, then the ability or spell that allowed you to take it in the first place is still considered to have been used, even though no unit actually arrived.
Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don’t cost you any reinforcement points. However, in a Pitched Battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for a unit).
Red Corsair wrote: No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point.
That's the second time melta bombs seem like they should have been mentioned and haven't been. I'm starting to believe that grenades have been changed radically in the new rules, possibly even removed altogether. It might be that melta bombs are not as cheap or widely available as they once were due to being improved. Or grenade effects could be something you buy with command points or whatever, as another tool to deal with all-vehicle lists and the like.
Kanluwen wrote: Someone else explained this earlier, but when it's an ability like the whole splits for Horrors it's not supposed to cost points.
I would imagine Gaunts brought in from Tervigons would be the same thing.
They're wrong, if we're using AoS as a precedent. Here's the rules as they pertain to Age of Sigmar:
REINFORCEMENT POINTS
Sometimes a spell or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed. In a Pitched Battle, you must set aside some of your points in order to be able to use these units. The points you set aside are called your army’s reinforcement points, and need to be recorded on your army roster.
Each time a unit is added to an army during a battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reinforcement points. If there are not enough points in the pool to pay for the unit, you must either decrease the size of the unit until you have enough points for it, or decide not to use it after all. If you decide not to use the unit, then the ability or spell that allowed you to take it in the first place is still considered to have been used, even though no unit actually arrived.
Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don’t cost you any reinforcement points. However, in a Pitched Battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for a unit).
So they're wrong then.
I don't have General's Handbook so can't confirm one way or the other.
frozenwastes wrote: "For example, if you’re playing the “Ambush” mission, the side with the highest total Power Level for their army will always play the role of the attacker, where the smaller enemy force will need to escape the trap."
I'm really liking the idea of Power Level as a quick and easy approach to the game. If a friend and I bring out some models we want to play with and I end up with 85 and he has 110, then we can just go to the list of scenarios made for unequal power levels and play one of them.
This might be a really great tool for busting up the "play every game like it's a round in a tournament" mindset that dominates some areas.
Of course that works with points. Power level is just less granular points.
My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.
I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?
It is weaker since Imobilized isn't a thing anymore. Give it a weak rend (or one of zero) and it becomes a lot less punchy.
That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.
I wonder if the Tervigon will have enough wounds that it can be targeted even if it's not the closest model? It's a big model, but it seems like it would be pretty thematic to have to chew through all the termagants to get to it (or maneuver around behind with deep strike, outflank, jump infantry or the like).
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.
Vehicles that grant greater mobility and protection will definitely alter the value of a weapon, however, you shouldn't pay a premium for a metla gun because a drop pod is available, instead you should pay an apporapriate price for the drop pod. This always annoyed me, a drop pod was criminally under cost in 7th edition. It had batter armor then a dreadnought, could land on an objective anywhere, drop infantry anywhere, and to top it all off, it broke the rules set for reserves on first turn AND automatically showed up AND you got to select which units auto arrived. For 35pts...
I'd rather heavy weapons be priced according to their value when added to the unit there purchased for and not see a hidden tax based on possible future upgrades. If a drop pod makes things better, charge for the pod not the other things.
My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.
I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?
It is weaker since Imobilized isn't a thing anymore. Give it a weak rend (or one of zero) and it becomes a lot less punchy.
That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.
But that's just my wishlisting talking.
The immobilized was way too strong, but I wouldn't mind grav guns slowing things down... Say a hit puts a grav token on a model till after the next time they move, each token halving their movement.
ClockworkZion wrote: Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).
Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.
Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.
I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.
I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.
No matter what you call it, it is still free models. I don't have a problem either way if the model assumes a standard output and is costed accordingly. Some games you get more, some less, but we play a randomized game, so that's OK.
Returned models to a unit that lost them don't cost anything in AoS, I imagine it's the same here. You can shut that down by removing the unit completely or killing the thing that replenishes them, so it's not a big deal for the most part.
I'm betting that's how Spyders and Tervigons will work now, or at least will be an option for them.
Especially since things like hormagaunts are like tissue paper when it comes to defense. The replenishing method is good when you get lucky but can quickly fall flat with a few bad rolls.
Had a tournament for AoS where my 4 Kharadron Overlord miniguns were just obliterating a hoard of zombies. Every turn the other guy was rolling 5s and 6s and getting back as many as I could kill. He made it all the way across the board 4 inches at a time just by adding units back to the squad. He srolled a few 1s and 2s and suddenly the squad vanished.
I feel like that is the most perfect way to have a tervigon work. Just make them enable that ability and possibly count as a transport for termigaunts and hormagaunts.
frozenwastes wrote: "For example, if you’re playing the “Ambush” mission, the side with the highest total Power Level for their army will always play the role of the attacker, where the smaller enemy force will need to escape the trap."
I'm really liking the idea of Power Level as a quick and easy approach to the game. If a friend and I bring out some models we want to play with and I end up with 85 and he has 110, then we can just go to the list of scenarios made for unequal power levels and play one of them.
This might be a really great tool for busting up the "play every game like it's a round in a tournament" mindset that dominates some areas.
Gonna say right now, if "Ambush" is anything like "The Trap" from AoS...
Beware the Sniper Rifle dedicated units like Rangers. My Waywatchers were frigging terrifying/downright broken with "The Trap" if someone was running a melee heavy force.
ClockworkZion wrote: That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.
But that's just my wishlisting talking.
Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.
I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.
My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.
I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?
It is weaker since Imobilized isn't a thing anymore. Give it a weak rend (or one of zero) and it becomes a lot less punchy.
That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.
But that's just my wishlisting talking.
Well, your assuming a lot here. For all we know grav does mortal wounds or maybe that immobilized effect is just different and it modifies a targets movement (halved next turn or even a flat -x). Just because the vehicle chart is gone don't assume they can't engineer similar effects.
edit- davou had the exact same thought even. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see something like that.
I'm really liking the idea of power levels having an impact on missions, like the one described in the example.
I could totally see power level being counter-balanced by scenario special rules: lower power level goes first, picks deployment, etc. Would be a good incentive to tone down tournament lists if a lower power level gives mission bonuses.
ClockworkZion wrote: That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.
But that's just my wishlisting talking.
Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.
I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.
Clearly he was crushed by the extra weight of his medals.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Tactical Marine Squads don't have an option to buy bolt guns or bolt pistols on their sergeant they come with both. As for melta-bombs maybe they went up in points we don't know. It isn't hard to believe they could be 7 points as well.
As for the multi-melta It is as good at wounding every toughness except 9 (and 18 if it exists) so the strength is much more of a wash than the extra AP from the melta 3+ save is a 6+ against the lascannon so that wounds 16% less. This matters even more with cover melta ignores cover more. Consistent damage vs range I would again say may well be a wash. It is easy enough to get a multi-melta into range (transports, Drop pods). I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
ClockworkZion wrote: That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.
But that's just my wishlisting talking.
Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.
I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.
Clearly he was crushed by the extra weight of his medals.
I'd rather grav simply wounds on a roll equal+ to the save like now, but is only rend -1 and on 6's to wound cause mortal wounds. Simply the nature of giving save mods and MANY more wounds already nerfed grav to a degree. If it only, and likely, inflicts single wounds you already have a tough choice between it and the other options.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.
Vehicles that grant greater mobility and protection will definitely alter the value of a weapon, however, you shouldn't pay a premium for a metla gun because a drop pod is available, instead you should pay an apporapriate price for the drop pod. This always annoyed me, a drop pod was criminally under cost in 7th edition. It had batter armor then a dreadnought, could land on an objective anywhere, drop infantry anywhere, and to top it all off, it broke the rules set for reserves on first turn AND automatically showed up AND you got to select which units auto arrived. For 35pts...
I'd rather heavy weapons be priced according to their value when added to the unit there purchased for and not see a hidden tax based on possible future upgrades. If a drop pod makes things better, charge for the pod not the other things.
To me it is just the opposite, costing things the way you suggest makes the drop pod less flexible because it is only appropriately costed for its most efficient use. Whereas a multi-melta benefits from the availability of various transport options.
Did anyone else notice that the 'no-mans' land between the deployments will easily allow for Turn 1 charges?
Unless there is an explicit rule preventing assaults in Turn 1, Deployment types like this could go a long way towards making melee-based armies incredibly competitive
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Have you considered the relatively negligible impact of the S9 LasCannon over the (presumably) S8 MultiMelta? Given the revised wound mechanics, the MultiMelta is likely to be at no disadvantage compared to a LasCannon, except in Range.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Tactical Marine Squads don't have an option to buy bolt guns or bolt pistols on their sergeant they come with both. As for melta-bombs maybe they went up in points we don't know. It isn't hard to believe they could be 7 points as well.
As for the multi-melta It is as good at wounding every toughness except 9 (and 18 if it exists) so the strength is much more of a wash than the extra AP from the melta 3+ save is a 6+ against the lascannon so that wounds 16% less. This matters even more with cover melta ignores cover more. Consistent damage vs range I would again say may well be a wash. It is easy enough to get a multi-melta into range (transports, Drop pods). I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
A multimelta isn't as good at wounding everything but T9, it is also CRUCIALLY worse at wounding T8, which we already have as an example for the leman russ. So that is an even trade of 16% I wouldn't call consistent damage a wash for range. 40k is a game based on finite turns ie actions, any weapon that can act pretty much all game long (survival permitting) is worth more to me when they are so close as those two. I'd rather get 4 times the shots starting turn 1.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Have you considered the relatively negligible impact of the S9 LasCannon over the (presumably) S8 MultiMelta? Given the revised wound mechanics, the MultiMelta is likely to be at no disadvantage compared to a LasCannon, except in Range.
Reread my post and you will notice I value range as one of the MOST important differences between the two.
I think this edition will be the epitome of "boyz before toyz"
And in my opinion, grenades should behave like what they are... grenades. A very strong one-use trick to use against that specially hard oponent, etc... how they are now to me is totally unfluffy and just... plain boring.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.
Vehicles that grant greater mobility and protection will definitely alter the value of a weapon, however, you shouldn't pay a premium for a metla gun because a drop pod is available, instead you should pay an apporapriate price for the drop pod. This always annoyed me, a drop pod was criminally under cost in 7th edition. It had batter armor then a dreadnought, could land on an objective anywhere, drop infantry anywhere, and to top it all off, it broke the rules set for reserves on first turn AND automatically showed up AND you got to select which units auto arrived. For 35pts...
I'd rather heavy weapons be priced according to their value when added to the unit there purchased for and not see a hidden tax based on possible future upgrades. If a drop pod makes things better, charge for the pod not the other things.
To me it is just the opposite, costing things the way you suggest makes the drop pod less flexible because it is only appropriately costed for its most efficient use. Whereas a multi-melta benefits from the availability of various transport options.
Well yeah, you don't price things based on their worst use. That makes no sense. That's why player skill matters. If you don't know how to use something properly your not getting the maximum value out of it. Which is how it should work.
Breng77 wrote: ...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.
Breng77 wrote: ...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.
It depends that thinking still requires you to have range with your other weapons for that to matter. So I think it is limited use that you will have range and LOS to lots of high value targets when both your bolters and lascannon have range and a multi-melta would not.
If your going to quote someone that is quoting someone that is also quoting someone can you possibly put that inside a spoiler tag. It makes the thread a little annoying if an entire conversion is continued on over 3 to 4 pages.
Breng77 wrote: I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
First turn charges are likely a possibility so having those multimeltas up front could be quite risky. Meltas that move every turn will produce 10 hits over 5 turns, but 13.3 static. 3.3 hits lost can be a dreadnought.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Tactical Marine Squads don't have an option to buy bolt guns or bolt pistols on their sergeant they come with both. As for melta-bombs maybe they went up in points we don't know. It isn't hard to believe they could be 7 points as well.
As for the multi-melta It is as good at wounding every toughness except 9 (and 18 if it exists) so the strength is much more of a wash than the extra AP from the melta 3+ save is a 6+ against the lascannon so that wounds 16% less. This matters even more with cover melta ignores cover more. Consistent damage vs range I would again say may well be a wash. It is easy enough to get a multi-melta into range (transports, Drop pods). I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
A multimelta isn't as good at wounding everything but T9, it is also CRUCIALLY worse at wounding T8, which we already have as an example for the leman russ. So that is an even trade of 16% I wouldn't call consistent damage a wash for range. 40k is a game based on finite turns ie actions, any weapon that can act pretty much all game long (survival permitting) is worth more to me when they are so close as those two. I'd rather get 4 times the shots starting turn 1.
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!
I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.
Have you considered the relatively negligible impact of the S9 LasCannon over the (presumably) S8 MultiMelta? Given the revised wound mechanics, the MultiMelta is likely to be at no disadvantage compared to a LasCannon, except in Range.
Reread my post and you will notice I value range as one of the MOST important differences between the two.
Where are you getting 4 times the number of shots from a lascannon vs a multi-melta. If I can easily get in range turn 1, I lose nothing in number of shots. If it takes me a turn to get in range you still only get 1 additional shot. As for T8, you are right, but that is no change from current for either. So the fact that S8 now wounds T10 on a 5+ and S9 now wounds T7 on a 3+ matters more.
Breng77 wrote: I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
First turn charges are likely a possibility so having those multimeltas up front could be quite risky. Meltas that move every turn will produce 10 hits over 5 turns, but 13.3 static. 3.3 hits lost can be a dreadnought.
There is certainly a lot to consider it seems.
But compared to now multi-meltas that moved every turn hit 1/6th of the time So they make a considerable gain on lascannons in this area because they often require movement.
ClockworkZion wrote: That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.
But that's just my wishlisting talking.
Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.
I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.
There's weapons in AoS that reduce the movement values of a unit.
To me it is just the opposite, costing things the way you suggest makes the drop pod less flexible because it is only appropriately costed for its most efficient use. Whereas a multi-melta benefits from the availability of various transport options.
But then mm is worth it only in pod.
Well points are ultimately best estimation anyway. For example i suspect mm, drop pod or not, is generally better in our games. Terrain cuts on range benefit
Points and Power Q: Essentially 8th edition means no more free stuff. You want that daemon, you are paying for that daemon. I love it. I also notice that GW isn't trying to have games with fewer models, but rather have more dynamic things happen to models more quickly to keep play to 2 hours. It's a pretty sly move to make sure model sales stay high. I see it being a successful strategy. If I can play 3000pts in 3 hours, I'd better buy a few new tanks...
A: "You want that Demon? You gotta pay for that demon". I want that on a T-shirt.
Q: Seems reasonable enough. STOP BEING SO REASONABLE, HOW ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS?
A: Ed, we profusely apologise for being so reasonable.
Q: So that's a big ol Tyranid nerf then.
And GSC too
Sad bois
A: Joel, you should know we have alerted the Inquisition of your latent psychic powers, as demonstrated by your ability to see the future before it has been revealed.
The Black Ships are on the way...
Q: Here's a summary for anyone that doesn't have time to read the article.
Points. They exist.
A: We need you in our editing dept.
Q: I wish this piece had a real example of how points would be formatted. It's not too complicated to look for points in a different part of the book in AoS, because they're broad like power levels, but I can't fathom a clean way to do granular points of each upgrade in a different part of the book. Would have been nice to see an example.
A: Fair feedback - we will see what we can do in the future.
Q: "The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book."
Why? The less a player has to flick through a book the better.
A: So we can alter points in the future without having to alter the whole data sheet. Also, the data sheet it valid for open and matched play too, which tend not to use points as much.
Q: I actually like the idea of power levels for narrative or quick games. I understand why points are seperate from datasheets for updating and balance reasons, but it seems weird to have to look at multiple pages/books just to put together one unit for a list.
A: It's entirely so we can update and tweak points without changing the entire datasheet. It's a good thing for a fluid game.
Q: So you just committed on balance. Thanks a lot that was the one thing I was missing in 7th edition! That and the ability to transport Kill kanz in Pikk Upp Trucks.
A: Killa Kans in Trukks? I'm seeing them falling through the floor of the Trukk in a Flintstones-esque situation...
Q: I like the ideas about changing points but what about when the team misses the mark on something and it is not an issue of points but rules. Will we see the team willing to consider changing data sheets too and not just points?
A: Great question. In the brave new world of New Games Workshop™, I reckon that would be a high priority.
Q: Very cool! Love how summoning will work now! Never summoned myself, but been on the receiving end... hopefully i'll be able to walk straight after playing demon lists now!
A: Bad images.
Q: The more I read the more I like the coming of the 8th edition. Despite my initial scepticism and I really liked 7th. Now I can't wait to get it on my hands. GWs really doing a good job! For the emperor
A: That kinda talk will get you promoted, trooper!
Q: This is great I think. Best of all worlds. Being able to adjust points when units start to dominate tournaments is a masterstroke. really REALLY like this.
A: We thought it made sense.
Q: I would assume Tervigons would also have to pay points for spawning termagantes since it is similar to summoning albeit with some key differences, any chance you guys can correct my assumptions before they're turned into reckless uncertainties?
A: We hate it when wild assumptions spawn into reckless uncertainty! We haven't seen the rules yet, but it's a pretty safe bet there will be no "free" models in the game going forwards.
Q: Speaking of summoning. Will my Bearers of the Word still be able to call upon daemonic allies? How does summing work exactly? Let's say it's turn 3 and I have 150 points set aside for summoning, do I just buy a daemon unit for that many points that turn and they auto come in? Will it be similar to a pyschic test?
A: More on that to come later; you'll see...
Q: This looks fantastic! Will the books be a little better laid out then the current codexes? I feel as if I need to flip through 4 sections just to find the wording on a rule with the currents books.
A: We have tried to tackle that in the new edition for sure. The datasheets are a great step forwards for that.
Q: So, now my big hope is for a faction spotlight on the Sororitas. Cmon Warhammer 40,000, show a little faith!
Spoiler:
A: It's happening. Have faith, Brother Devon!
Q: Love that you guys are thinking to the future! Love everything so far about 8th. Hesitant about character rules, but more than that just wish I had 8th to play right NOW! Super excited!
A: We want this game to be around a long time.
Q: Does this mean Tervigons could possibly become troop transports instead of Brood Mothers?
A: We don't know until we see the Tyranid Focus! Coming soon...
Q: Wait a second... GW is actually going to be doing active changes to the point values of certain units/gears? Active tweaking to the game beyond that of FAQ's?
Well hot damn.
A: That's the plan...
Q: How long GW's? How long must we sit in anticipation for this epic goodness?
A: It's coming soon.. real, real soon™...
Q: Will Tervigon's spawned Termagants count as "summoning"? Will you need to keep some points apart for them?
A: Well, we reckon you want to hold out and wait for the Tyranid Faction Focus, which is burrowing it's way here quicker than a claustrophobic Trygon.
Q: This is great stuff! So am I reading this right that summoning will be different from deep striking in 8th edition?
A: It could well do. More information on that coming in the future.
Q: "each of those Tactical Marines would cost 13 points each, " Fresh in from the Derpartment of Redundancy Dept.
I. LOVE. The change to summoned units counting towards overall army point cost. This'll nerf Tervigon and Daemon-summoning armies to manageable levels.
Also, can I beg a Tyranid faction focus article?
A: Of course you can, Pete. It will be with you once the Tervigon has belched it from it's burgeoning belly.
Q: Actual relatively sensbile quiestion: When the app comes out with army builders in it, any chance of a Windows version for those of us with laptops rather than tablets?
A: No word on the app yet, Ed, but we can but hope! Watch this space for news when we get it.
Q: Will there be printed "codexes" in this new format? I'm less concerned about the rules and more concerned about all the new fluff. For example my Space Wolf codex is WAY behind on lore and I would be curious to learn what the Sons of Russ have been up to since Cadia.
A: That would be very cool. We haven't heard about what books are coming yet or how, but we do know codexes in a format similar to the current one are being planned. Watch this space for more!
Q: Can we, potentially, be given an example of summoning and it's respective costs in a future article? Perhaps tying that in to however you write up regarding Daemons?
While being vague is fine, it would be helpful to have something to actually read directly.
A: We will see what we can do.
Q: Hi GW - do we have any idea how often balances passes will be made for points costs? Obviously anything more often than "once per 2-5 years with each codex release" is great, but will it be a thing of regular online patch notes, or still hinge on a less frequent release of a physical product - I.e., an annual re-release of the 40k General's Handbook?
A: No idea at the moment, Alex - we will have to see when it happens. Watch this space for more as and when we get it.
Q: Cool. Glad to see the demise of "free stuff". So will other forces be able to "spawn" new units if they have the points - thinking Tyranid Tervigon, Necron Canoptek Spyder, Genestealer Cult Summons?
A: Great question, Martin; I guess we will just have to wait and see!
Q: Would also love to see if Tyranids get upgrades that even then out against other armies like how they adapt in the books and like 4th ed.
A: Truly terrifying monsters? Huge combat attacks? Devastating shooting... Tyranids will be juuust fine.
Q: Would love some more info on necrons on how they will work and reanimation protocols
A: Hey Ellis - look out for the Necron Faction Focus article, coming soon...
Q: Hey GW, will be see a blood angels faction focus? I ask because my..eh... friend, whos in hospital, really wants to know
A: Tell your friend that they won't have long to wait! For the article, we mean... not for treatment. We hope. Get better soon!
Q: 27 pts for a multi melta? Oh my. That is not cheap! lol A: You pay for what it's worth... and yup , it's worth it.
Q: Just asking,you wrote ordinary points will come in another book.
I hope you are not planning of releasing it after 1 year as you did for age of sigmar with the General Compendium.
A: Not at all. Full points on release for all units.
Q: So using power points you can equip whatever you want to your squads, how does that not stop imbalance?
A: That's right. The Power Level assumes you are taking a pretty souped up version of that unit. You should feel free to take anything you like on that unit if you are playing Power Levels.
Q: 27 points for a multi-melta? Damn, they must be nasty now!
A: Ooooooh yes.
Q: Sounds cool! Love the power levels for quick fun play.
Thanks for the cost for tact marines. Could we see a similar breakdown for Rubrics to see how power levels and points scale? Curious to see how my beloved Rubrics stand up point wise. Thanks!
A: Tell you what, Scott.. we will write all the rules for all the Chaos models down and make them available to you on the launch!
We wish we had room to show you every unit in the game, but alas, it is not so.
Q: But what if their power level is ALREADY 9000!?!?!?
A: OVER 9000?!?!
Q1: You were 33 minutes late!
A1: We're sorry! Did we make up for it with an awesome article?
Q2: No orks info. So no.
A2: Ork info, huh? Ok... they're super awesome in combat now. More on that later!
Q: I am so excited and I just can't hide it.
A: We're about to to balance the game and I think I like it.
Q: How does a Tervigon work? Do I need to set points aside?
A: I guess we will see more on that in the Tyranid Focus article, winging this way faster than an impatient Haruspex.
Q: Veeery curious how my daemonkin are going to survive
A: By collecting lots of skulls...
Q: wow you guys were late today, I almost gave up
A: Sorry! Technical issues.... not us being divas and arriving late, we promise...
Q: How many models do you need for a power level of over 9000?
A: ....OVER 9000?!
*resists meme*
Q: Sorry when I see the phrase "power level" I think DBZ
A: Yeah, that joke's been mentioned OVER 9000 times.
Q: 27 points? 7 points?! MY OCD. WHY YOU DO DIS
A: Ha! TI's because that's exactly what it's worth!
Q: Hey GW will we see any dark eldar articles?
A: Of course we will, loyal citizen of Commorragh.
That's the reason I don't like combi weapons on termies during the heresy. You have to take 5 before getting back to the increments of 5 they usually work in.
Breng77 wrote: ...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.
It depends that thinking still requires you to have range with your other weapons for that to matter. So I think it is limited use that you will have range and LOS to lots of high value targets when both your bolters and lascannon have range and a multi-melta would not.
A smart player can no longer rely on MSU alone to make your shooting inefficient. The best way so far from what we have seen is going to be using range bands to restrict your targets. That makes the LC a much stronger choice since those tac marines can shoot their small arms where they are at their bast, close range on soft targets, while the LC dude can reach across the table an hit that higher durability target. The MM doesn't have that, so a smart opponent can out range the MM. It's a major benefit in the new rules that I think your undervaluing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Breng77
I am assuming a LC gets more shots on average from turn one because it will based on range. It makes more sense for me to assume range will get me more shots on average then for you to assume shots starting turn 1 on a short range item.
I think once again your adding in the benefit of drop pods. I'll reiterate what I already said, drop pods should cost more because they are an upgrade granting mobility, it makes no sense to price a MM at a higher cost because a drop pod exists. You said this makes drop pods less flexible and that's true, and that's the point. A drop pod should cost based on it's roll, getting things into range, I would argue taxing a MM because a pod exists makes the MM less flexible since now I am paying that tax even if I want to run my guys on the ground.
EDIT: I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree once again Always a great time sharing ideas with you though I am still betting a LC cost more btw
I am assuming a LC gets more shots on average from turn one because it will based on range. It makes more sense for me to assume range will get me more shots on average then for you to assume shots starting turn 1 on a short range item.
Exactly. More shots possible --and more likely to shoot the things you actually WANT to shoot at rather than just what you CAN shoot at. Sure, your bolters are still going to be shorter range and if you are moving the squad around for the optimal spot the shoot your heavy weapons, the bolter guys may not have a target. The reverse might also be true where you are forced to turn a lowly cultist into a fine red mist with your Multi-melta or Lascannon bacause you simply have nothing to shoot at. But that's true with both the Multi-melta and the Lascannon. The Lascannon will run into this situation less often than the multi-melta because the lascannon has double the range. Arguing that it's not going to happen that often and therefore won't really matter is changing the subject somewhat. It might potentially be a rare occurrence depending on your experience, but that doesn't mean that you can argue that added range ISN'T more of a benefit now that you can split fire.
Breng77 wrote: ...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.
Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.
It depends that thinking still requires you to have range with your other weapons for that to matter. So I think it is limited use that you will have range and LOS to lots of high value targets when both your bolters and lascannon have range and a multi-melta would not.
A smart player can no longer rely on MSU alone to make your shooting inefficient. The best way so far from what we have seen is going to be using range bands to restrict your targets. That makes the LC a much stronger choice since those tac marines can shoot their small arms where they are at their bast, close range on soft targets, while the LC dude can reach across the table an hit that higher durability target. The MM doesn't have that, so a smart opponent can out range the MM. It's a major benefit in the new rules that I think your undervaluing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Breng77
I am assuming a LC gets more shots on average from turn one because it will based on range. It makes more sense for me to assume range will get me more shots on average then for you to assume shots starting turn 1 on a short range item.
I think once again your adding in the benefit of drop pods. I'll reiterate what I already said, drop pods should cost more because they are an upgrade granting mobility, it makes no sense to price a MM at a higher cost because a drop pod exists. You said this makes drop pods less flexible and that's true, and that's the point. A drop pod should cost based on it's roll, getting things into range, I would argue taxing a MM because a pod exists makes the MM less flexible since now I am paying that tax even if I want to run my guys on the ground.
EDIT: I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree once again Always a great time sharing ideas with you though I am still betting a LC cost more btw
Will agree to disagree. Really I'm assuming that 30" (move + shot) can net me some kind of target turn 1. If not certainly turn 2. Or that shooting out of a rhino will get me more movement etc. I'm not saying you might not get 1 extra shot, just not 4 times as many. I figure I will be shooting the multi-melta starting turn 2 at the latest until it dies. Now you can argue it might die faster, and you could factor that into a lascannon advantage. I'm thinking the lascannon will be similar in cost to the Multi-melta as it costs 20 points now and I don't see it having gained more than 7 points in value. Then again I'd like to see each valued differently in different squads as lascannons might be better in a devastator squad, but not as good in a tactical squad.
I guess it makes sense for HW's to go up in points for the huge boost in mobility they got and the added split fire bonus.
Might make devi/havoc style units suffer a little bit since quite often they deploy then dont move much... but the spilt fire alone probably counter balances it.
lets hope long fangs get something nice to compensate, probably wont get the -1 for moving or something
Will agree to disagree. Really I'm assuming that 30" (move + shot) can net me some kind of target turn 1. If not certainly turn 2. Or that shooting out of a rhino will get me more movement etc. I'm not saying you might not get 1 extra shot, just not 4 times as many. I figure I will be shooting the multi-melta starting turn 2 at the latest until it dies. Now you can argue it might die faster, and you could factor that into a lascannon advantage. I'm thinking the lascannon will be similar in cost to the Multi-melta as it costs 20 points now and I don't see it having gained more than 7 points in value. Then again I'd like to see each valued differently in different squads as lascannons might be better in a devastator squad, but not as good in a tactical squad.
Rotary wrote: Eldar info already. Seems they are still the favored xenos. I'd love to hear a little about orks and nids.
Every article is going to make every army look like they're broken. Considering how hard GW is chasing getting the game to be balanced (1000 points giving the same relative power no matter which army you play) I'm going to say I don't see the Eldar sitting on top just because of a few casual statements made in marketing material with no rules or points presented.
Daedalus81 wrote: Multi-melta could also be even stronger than just a range upgrade over the melta.
True that. 2nd ed meltagun isn't that spectacular and mm isn't just range. Also better armour pen and TEMPLATE which was huge. Tank busting isn't due to extra strength at short range but the template makes for nasty tank busterx
Daedalus81 wrote: Multi-melta could also be even stronger than just a range upgrade over the melta.
True that. 2nd ed meltagun isn't that spectacular and mm isn't just range. Also better armour pen and TEMPLATE which was huge. Tank busting isn't due to extra strength at short range but the template makes for nasty tank busterx
I was going to say. In 2nd ed the multimelta had a 4" diameter blast, did 2D12 damage and was the most expensive heavy weapon available to marine troopers.
I bet it will be FSE and/or Tau lore info tomorrow since the pic at the bottom is of the FSE. I sure hope so this is the one I'm most interested in. If it's not FSE/Tau then eh still something cool to learn.
Q: I like the ideas about changing points but what about when the team misses the mark on something and it is not an issue of points but rules. Will we see the team willing to consider changing data sheets too and not just points?
A: Great question. In the brave new world of New Games Workshop™, I reckon that would be a high priority.
Here they are saying the truth. In AoS they don't only change points, for example, with the new Blades of Khorne Battletome, they give Bloodreavers a save of 6+ (They haven't had one before) and pump they from 6 points a piece to 7 points. And the Korgorath, they give their meele attacks +1 damage (So, from 1 damage it jumped to 2, basically they give him a 100% increase in damage) and it did go from 80 points to 100 points, making him a viable option!
GW wrote:Q: How does a Tervigon work? Do I need to set points aside?
A: I guess we will see more on that in the Tyranid Focus article, winging this way faster than an impatient Haruspex.
CLEARLY they meant Harpy or Harridon here, as Haruspexes cannot fly.
*pushes up glasses and chortles*
But the way they're answering Tyranid probes has me thinking todays FF is our favorite dinosaur space-locust faction. Oh boiohboiohboi.
Have we seen the profile for multimelta's yet? I think if they work more like the new interpretation of twin linked over the standard double range as the model does have 2 barrels, then would make sense why they are so expensive.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Have we seen the profile for multimelta's yet? I think if they work more like the new interpretation of twin linked over the standard double range as the model does have 2 barrels, then would make sense why they are so expensive.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Have we seen the profile for multimelta's yet? I think if they work more like the new interpretation of twin linked over the standard double range as the model does have 2 barrels, then would make sense why they are so expensive.
Nope. Only meltagun has been seen.
Thanks.
That's what I though - so it is an assumption that it is the same as before and just a long range version, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a multi shot weapon instead.
GW wrote:Q: How does a Tervigon work? Do I need to set points aside?
A: I guess we will see more on that in the Tyranid Focus article, winging this way faster than an impatient Haruspex.
CLEARLY they meant Harpy or Harridon here, as Haruspexes cannot fly.
*pushes up glasses and chortles*
But the way they're answering Tyranid probes has me thinking todays FF is our favorite dinosaur space-locust faction. Oh boiohboiohboi.
Faction Focuses aren't every day. We're looking at one likely next week and not today.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
I think it would be a safe bet that each "chapter" will be a faction, with the ones dedicated to a specific chaos god being the first to be expanded. EC-Slaneesh, WE-Khorn, TS-Tzeentch, DG=Nurgle. Though Black Legion obviously gets a lot of attention.
So by the looks of it, the Lascannon will have units like Terminator's take 5+ armor saves (before invulnerable) while the Melta makes it a 6+.
As for damage the Multi Melta sounds more reliable getting 2d6 take the highest for the number of damage points dealt per shot.
Hmmm I feel the Melta rule (the 2d6 take the highest for damage) will be just a bit better but it comes down to range vs damage. Just because it means much better chances to massively wound vehicles.
Who wants to work up a chart?
Edit: oh and I suddenly suspect that a Multi-Melta will be 2d6 Damage...
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Just because you don't doesn't mean other people won't...
This slow drip of information is infuriating. I'm actively looking forward to the release. I also find myself actively looking forward to these articles, which are almost always disappointing given how little information they present.
Today's article...
#1 - "Points are still a thing, but aren't on the datasheet anymore." Ugh. Nothing to see here. Show me what the page with the points looks like.
#2 - "No more free models. Summoning now works more like a sideboard you have to pay for." The second they said 'matched play', every AoS player assumed this would be true. No free models. Good to have a confirmation, but also sort of a piece of non-news.
Just give us a release date already and show us what the product is going to look like. How many books will there be? If I play Tau, Skitarii and Iron Warriors and want to play Matched Play, how much will I need to spend on day one? This is killing me.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Just because you don't doesn't mean other people won't...
Exactly. I have a feeling it will be my preferred method.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Really? I can think of a few possibilities:
1. New Players
2. People who want to run unbalanced missions (Meatgrinder, Ambush)
3. Casual players who don't want to muck with trying to perfectly fill points levels in
4. People looking for a pick up game with whatever they brought with them
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Just because you don't doesn't mean other people won't...
Exactly. I have a feeling it will be my preferred method.
Same here. It's one of the changes I'm most looking forward to.
Bulldogging wrote: I think it would be a safe bet that each "chapter" will be a faction, with the ones dedicated to a specific chaos god being the first to be expanded. EC-Slaneesh, WE-Khorn, TS-Tzeentch, DG=Nurgle. Though Black Legion obviously gets a lot of attention.
If they are factions, they'll likely add a Faction Keyword to every unit in their army.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
I will use it most definitely, I can't see why I'd want to use fiddly granular points if the power levels are good enough. They would have to mega 'broken' for me to not use them. Not every one is worried about being outpointed by the equivalent of a bolter or two.
Yeah, i'm going to play the gak out of narrative games. When I paint a unit, I like to have the maximum level of variation in the squad. I'd love to run my glorious old units like my Vostroyan Power sword/plasma pistol and Powerfist sergeants without feeling punished for taking a probably useless melee upgrade in the squad. So I'll likely be playing a lot of Narrative mode
Kriswall wrote: This slow drip of information is infuriating. I'm actively looking forward to the release. I also find myself actively looking forward to these articles, which are almost always disappointing given how little information they present.
Today's article...
#1 - "Points are still a thing, but aren't on the datasheet anymore." Ugh. Nothing to see here. Show me what the page with the points looks like.
#2 - "No more free models. Summoning now works more like a sideboard you have to pay for." The second they said 'matched play', every AoS player assumed this would be true. No free models. Good to have a confirmation, but also sort of a piece of non-news.
Just give us a release date already and show us what the product is going to look like. How many books will there be? If I play Tau, Skitarii and Iron Warriors and want to play Matched Play, how much will I need to spend on day one? This is killing me
I tend to agree. I'm starting to get bored by all of this. If GW was trying to gin up interest, I think they are being too clever by half, or even more than half.
I was really excited for a while to see the Ork article, but now it's just meh, whatever.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Just because you don't doesn't mean other people won't...
Exactly. I have a feeling it will be my preferred method.
Same here. It's one of the changes I'm most looking forward to.
Same. Playing accountant for half an hour before each game can go to heck. I'd rather be able to show up knowing relatively how much my army is worth and be able to throw down in an interesting scenario without calling in the UN.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Really? I can think of a few possibilities:
1. New Players
2. People who want to run unbalanced missions (Meatgrinder, Ambush)
3. Casual players who don't want to muck with trying to perfectly fill points levels in
4. People looking for a pick up game with whatever they brought with them
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Just because you don't doesn't mean other people won't...
Exactly. I have a feeling it will be my preferred method.
Same here. It's one of the changes I'm most looking forward to.
Same. Playing accountant for half an hour before each game can go to heck. I'd rather be able to show up knowing relatively how much my army is worth and be able to throw down in an interesting scenario without calling in the UN.
Ditto.
hopefully the power levels will roughly be balanced. even with equipment.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Really? I can think of a few possibilities:
1. New Players
2. People who want to run unbalanced missions (Meatgrinder, Ambush)
3. Casual players who don't want to muck with trying to perfectly fill points levels in
4. People looking for a pick up game with whatever they brought with them
2 works with either points so not that
They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.
Same. Playing accountant for half an hour before each game can go to heck. I'd rather be able to show up knowing relatively how much my army is worth and be able to throw down in an interesting scenario without calling in the UN.
Ditto.
hopefully the power levels will roughly be balanced. even with equipment.
GeeDubs staid that it should be "broadly" balanced. It won't be as finely tuned as matched play, but it's broad strokes balancing.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Literally everyone I know that is excited for 8th edition is going to use power levels, as scenario play is a hell of a lot more fun in our group than "competitive" "line up across the board and roll initiative" "gaming".
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Just because you don't doesn't mean other people won't...
Exactly. I have a feeling it will be my preferred method.
I will love it! Easy campaign setups!
Edit:
Examples!
Boom this is game one, your force has landed and is facing the Vanguard of your hated foe! You have 75 Pl to their 100! Good luck and the Emperor will Protect!
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.
Clearly he was crushed by the extra weight of his medals.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
As others have said I will sometimes
Apocalypse games
games with my wife
pick-up games with newer players if they want.
Depending on how good it is I might use it for any casual game (read against opponents that don't want top tier competitive), as it will just make things quicker.
Kriswall wrote: This slow drip of information is infuriating. I'm actively looking forward to the release. I also find myself actively looking forward to these articles, which are almost always disappointing given how little information they present.
Today's article...
#1 - "Points are still a thing, but aren't on the datasheet anymore." Ugh. Nothing to see here. Show me what the page with the points looks like.
#2 - "No more free models. Summoning now works more like a sideboard you have to pay for." The second they said 'matched play', every AoS player assumed this would be true. No free models. Good to have a confirmation, but also sort of a piece of non-news.
Just give us a release date already and show us what the product is going to look like. How many books will there be? If I play Tau, Skitarii and Iron Warriors and want to play Matched Play, how much will I need to spend on day one? This is killing me.
I know right, I do enjoy seeing any kind of news every day. But they are only drip feeding rules. What about the models, fluff? As someone who is a hobbyist and painter and fan of the lore...I feel like this is a drag. I know they don't want to reveal too much too soon cause it may take away sales from the BB stuff and Kharadron Overlords...but i'm not spending a dime anyways until I know what the deal is with the new starter set. Even unveiling a 360 spin of a new model from the starter each week would be something. They could start with a 360 look at the basic tactical numarine, then the next week do one of a plaguemarine and so on. But getting a wall of text and numbers every day is getting old. And for any new players looking forward to the edition all of the drip feed rule changes don't mean anything anyways.
The power level thing feels like a experiment to see if people like the tradtional detailed pointing system or something more like warmachine's.
Edit: @Thragrim
The rules come out in June, and the starter set usely comes out a month after.
I think Age of sigmar was the only time both came out at the same time. But that could of been because of the hard reset both the rules and setting had going from WHFB to AoS. That and AoS at the time did not have a physical rule book to release. So they put everything out in July.
hopefully the power levels will roughly be balanced. even with equipment.
They will not be (unless you always take all available options on units...even then...). Equipment creates far too large of a disparity.
Disparity sure, but too large? too large for what? Both players will just take what is 'best' or what they want over a number of different units. It will likely be more than good enough. It hasn't been a problem having free 'upgrades' in AoS so far, so I'm not really expecting such a thing here.
Thargrim wrote: But they are only drip feeding rules. What about the models, fluff?
The only new models that are coming with a new edition is the starter set, which doesn't always come out when the edition drops (there is usually a gap last I recall), as for fluff, what fluff? All the new fluff we have is either Gathering Storm or will be after the new edition launch when the Nu-Marines launch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lockark wrote: The power level thing feels like a experiment to see if people like the tradtional detailed pointing system or something more like warmachine's.
Or a way to try to approach casual and matched play and make them stand out from each other.
Kriswall wrote: This slow drip of information is infuriating. I'm actively looking forward to the release. I also find myself actively looking forward to these articles, which are almost always disappointing given how little information they present.
Today's article...
#1 - "Points are still a thing, but aren't on the anymore." Ugh. Nothing to see here. Show me what the page with the points looks like.
#2 - "No more free models. Summoning now works more like a sideboard you have to pay for." The second they said 'matched play', every AoS player assumed this would be true. No free models. Good to have a confirmation, but also sort of a piece of non-news.
Just give us a release date already and show us what the product is going to look like. How many books will there be? If I play Tau, Skitarii and Iron Warriors and want to play Matched Play, how much will I need to spend on day one? This is killing me.
I'm going to disagree a bit with you: they've said more than that. With the example of the grav-gun they are showing that: A) the thing will be finally properly costed and that B) it is likely to see a nerf in power if it's worth that. and the MM points shows us that the heavy weapons will suffer a hike to compensate the extra manneuverability.
hopefully the power levels will roughly be balanced. even with equipment.
They will not be (unless you always take all available options on units...even then...). Equipment creates far too large of a disparity.
Disparity sure, but too large? too large for what? Both players will just take what is 'best' or what they want over a number of different units. It will likely be more than good enough. It hasn't been a problem having free 'upgrades' in AoS so far, so I'm not really expecting such a thing here.
if as stated the power level assumes the best/maximum upgrades then taking other upgrades will start to skew the balance. If we assume wargear is pointed such that the most expensive upgrades are the best (absent paying for them), then losing those points obviously skews balance. Some units have way more upgrade options than others so if Eldar Jetbikes can still take scatter lasers on every bike, and power level assumes they do (assuming that is still optimal), then not taking them puts you behind on balance. So it really depends, I think they will be roughly balanced so long as one player isn't playing optimal upgrades while the other is running naked squads. AOS in my understanding has far fewer upgrades for each squad than 40k currently does. But it should hopefully put you in the ball park and I would not be at all surprised if it is at least as balanced as points are in 7th.
Thargrim wrote: But they are only drip feeding rules. What about the models, fluff?
The only new models that are coming with a new edition is the starter set, which doesn't always come out when the edition drops (there is usually a gap last I recall), as for fluff, what fluff? All the new fluff we have is either Gathering Storm or will be after the new edition launch when the Nu-Marines launch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lockark wrote: The power level thing feels like a experiment to see if people like the tradtional detailed pointing system or something more like warmachine's.
Or a way to try to approach casual and matched play and make them stand out from each other.
Yeah it does make a pre-game idea of how casual a game is a bit easier "hey you want a 100 power level game?" Puts forward some clear expectations about how hardcore the game might be. Now some TFG might still powergame, but at least the signal is there.
A couple of years ago I would have been dismayed at all of these suggested changes, but I think this new 40k is going to be awesome. If we get the significant improvement in balance I'm hoping for (and half expecting) I'm thinking of starting an Iron Warriors army. A few dreads, a bunch of heavy bolters and plasma pistols, no bikes... please make this work GW!
Gamgee wrote: Deathwatch are going to be so expensive. :( They need something to push their competitiveness.
A freind and me were looking at terminators and variants of veterans and thinking maybe 2 wounds crosses over, so deathwatch would all be 2 wounds same as grey knights to make them competitive.
if as stated the power level assumes the best/maximum upgrades then taking other upgrades will start to skew the balance.
Only if your sensitivity to 'balance' is that fine. Note my reference to good enough. All balance only has to be good enough for the players involved, so unless you are highly sensitive to being a couple of weapons under powered it just isn't that big an issue.
if as stated the power level assumes the best/maximum upgrades then taking other upgrades will start to skew the balance.
Only if your sensitivity to 'balance' is that fine. Note my reference to good enough. All balance only has to be good enough for the players involved, so unless you are highly sensitive to being a couple of weapons under powered it just isn't that big an issue.
right if both players are fine, no problem. IF you are trying to use it like points as a fine balance mechanism then as I pointed out with things like eldar jetbikes it can make a pretty big difference. Like I said though that assumes one person fully kitted out the other not. We shall see how good it is after use.
The question comes in would you play in a tournament that had an army design document that said:
Armies must be Battle Forged for each scenario
Main Deployment: 150 Power Level
Reserve deployment: three 50 Power Level Sidebars.
--- One sidebar may be used per game.
if as stated the power level assumes the best/maximum upgrades then taking other upgrades will start to skew the balance.
Only if your sensitivity to 'balance' is that fine. Note my reference to good enough. All balance only has to be good enough for the players involved, so unless you are highly sensitive to being a couple of weapons under powered it just isn't that big an issue.
Indeed, and for anyone who is concerned enough about that sort of thing can just use points!
Youn wrote: The question comes in would you play in a tournament that had an army design document that said:
Armies must be Battle Forged for each scenario
Main Deployment: 150 Power Level
Reserve deployment: three 50 Power Level Sidebars.
--- One sidebar may be used per game.
With no points for building an army?
Would you use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail? If you care about competitive balance for tournies, you use points!
Albino Squirrel wrote: Now I can kind of see what some people have been saying, about being worried that tournament gamers are helping so much to refine the rules. People always say that a tightly balanced set of tournament friendly rules benefits everyone, including the more narrative gamers. But now I'm thinking that's not really true.
I'm starting to suspect that a lot of the little details that don't make sense are in there for "balance" or tournament purposes. For example, someone probably noticed that the striking scorpions aren't good against space marines. Because most armies have space marines in them, they pointed out that nobody is going to take striking scorpions to a tournament unless they can do something in a game against a space marine army. So they make mandiblasters cause mortal wounds to make them a more attractive choice to the tournament gamer, while not making any sense and breaking a bit of the immersion for some of the more narrative gamers that play the game in order to experience the background on the tabletop.
I like a lot of the major changes to the rules, but whether or not I enjoy the game will probably come down to the missions and all the little details on the individual units. And I'm beginning to worry that they are going to get a lot of the details wrong in their willingness to sacrifice immersion for balance.
+1
I hope you are wrong, but I also have picked up on this when they said orders are automatic for Guard. I know they are trying to streamline but still...
..Why is balance bad again?
Because of that thing I just said. Which you even quoted. Just read the above posts you quoted.
People is looking with to much detail the Power Level, talking about "balance". It isn't meant to be totally balanced, is a rough estimation for open and narrative play.
They have said that they have give the Power Level with the unit fully upgraded in mind, so thats it.
GW wrote:The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want
Really? I don't know anyone who's gonna play that "narrative" power-level mode.
Literally everyone I know that is excited for 8th edition is going to use power levels, as scenario play is a hell of a lot more fun in our group than "competitive" "line up across the board and roll initiative" "gaming".
Power levels by themselves don't increase narrative play. You can have just as much narrative by saying "2 marines can take meltas, but not 3."
In some ways points increase the narrative play, because you have to make loadout choices which could reflect the shortages a unit might face after extended time in the field.
The only thing open play does is it gets the game started quicker. This is a good thing, but it isn't any more narrative. You can play every scenario in the book with points instead of power levels.
Youn wrote: The question comes in would you play in a tournament that had an army design document that said:
Armies must be Battle Forged for each scenario
Main Deployment: 150 Power Level
Reserve deployment: three 50 Power Level Sidebars.
--- One sidebar may be used per game.
With no points for building an army?
Would you use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail? If you care about competitive balance for tournies, you use points!
Not all tournaments have to be competitively balanced, of course. You could probably get more people to come to a store's weekend 40k day if you make it easier for them to just bring what they have rather than having to pre-plan a detailed list and have it judged by refs.
That being said, actually competitive games and tournaments should certainly use points over power level.
Ah, so I am guessing you also would have an issue with the unknown of:
Armies must be Battle Forged for each scenario
Main Deployment: 1500 points
Reserve Deployment: three 500 point sidebars
-- One sidebar may be used per game.
Without having to tell your opponent which sidebar you were going to use in that game until the point you brought it onto the table.
Gamgee wrote: Deathwatch are going to be so expensive. :( They need something to push their competitiveness.
But AMAZING!
As for the supposed disparity of points if you are playing games with Power Level you are playing narrative or for fun why would you be trying to just beat down people?
Galas wrote: I think this edition will be the epitome of "boyz before toyz"
And in my opinion, grenades should behave like what they are... grenades. A very strong one-use trick to use against that specially hard oponent, etc... how they are now to me is totally unfluffy and just... plain boring.
Grenades have always seemed weird to me. Right now they feel like distraction devices, basically glorified shuriken, but I can see why under the 3rd-7th rules they might not have wanted to give most models a short range blast template weapon. It would have made pistols entirely irrelevant and slowed the game way down.
Now I think they have an opportunity to make grenades more interesting. The template problem no longer applies and pistols can be fired in melee so they still have a purpose.
I could also see them just ditching them entirely and treating them as decorations, though. They might them as extra reasoning for why grots/guardsmen can hurt tanks. The lasgun/grot blasta didn't get through the Land Raider's armor, it was a lucky hit with a grenade/stikkbomb.
I actually like a couple of things I'm hearing on the points side.
1) the average game now looks to be around 2,000 points.
2) no more free units including summoning.
3) "points" and "power levels" are separate. But you can use power levels to limit units when playing pointed games. This I think maybe one of the best changes to balance in the history of the game actually. So you can run 2000 Point tournament and limit the power level of any individual unit at the same time.
Snake Tortoise wrote: A couple of years ago I would have been dismayed at all of these suggested changes, but I think this new 40k is going to be awesome. If we get the significant improvement in balance I'm hoping for (and half expecting) I'm thinking of starting an Iron Warriors army. A few dreads, a bunch of heavy bolters and plasma pistols, no bikes... please make this work GW!
Gamgee wrote: Deathwatch are going to be so expensive. :( They need something to push their competitiveness.
A freind and me were looking at terminators and variants of veterans and thinking maybe 2 wounds crosses over, so deathwatch would all be 2 wounds same as grey knights to make them competitive.
Space marine vets and others could easily pick up 2 wounds. Anything is possible.
In some ways points increase the narrative play, because you have to make loadout choices which could reflect the shortages a unit might face after extended time in the field.
If you're modeling something like that, you're better off working up a system of points that reflect loadout availability and logistics. The Matched point system is designed to reflect balance, not narrative.
The point of power level is that narrative/open scenarios, played appropriately, are supposed to have native imbalances that can't be accounted for with points. It's pointless to account for every pistol when there's (say) warp lightning striking the board randomly and mutating what it hits.
They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.
Power levels are just less granular points. Same thing, one is just jess balanced but quicker to use. If anything they wil' be more balanced with points but require more pre game calculations
Galas wrote: People is looking with to much detail the Power Level, talking about "balance". It isn't meant to be totally balanced, is a rough estimation for open and narrative play.
They have said that they have give the Power Level with the unit fully upgraded in mind, so thats it.
They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.
Power levels are just less granular points. Same thing, one is just jess balanced but quicker to use. If anything they wil' be more balanced with points but require more pre game calculations
Yup. Here is a FoC, you get 200 Pl have fun!
On a side note... They think 1000 Pl is a 90 minute game... If a Tactical Squad is 5 Pl (1 Pl per marine effectively)... How much are Tanks!
I'm not looking forward to my first argument over whether we're using "power level" or the proper points system when selecting armies.
I can see it now, the local Tau player insisting that power level is "close enough, I swear!" as he pulls out 14 Riptides with every possible upgrade, the cheesy git.
Points system for me, please. I don't really see any reason to have an "approximate" points system when the precise points system exists. It's like installing a second speedometer, except this one says you're going "Oh, I dunno, like 50 mph or so I guess," while the proper one tells you the exact speed. Why would you ever bother with less precision when more precision is available? Is the mere seconds of savings on basic arithmetic really worth the inevitable loss of balance?
Grimdakka wrote: I'm not looking forward to my first argument over whether we're using "power level" or the proper points system when selecting armies.
I can see it now, the local Tau player insisting that power level is "close enough, I swear!" as he pulls out 14 Riptides with every possible upgrade, the cheesy git.
Points system for me, please. I don't really see any reason to have an "approximate" points system when the precise points system exists. It's like installing a second speedometer, except this one says you're going "Oh, I dunno, like 50 mph or so I guess," while the proper one tells you the exact speed. Why would you ever bother with less precision when more precision is available? Is the mere seconds of savings on basic arithmetic really worth the inevitable loss of balance?
power levels are more for games with your buddies that are light hearted, fun and more narritive. a "cheesy Tau git" isn't someone they intent for PLs to be for
Grimdakka wrote: I'm not looking forward to my first argument over whether we're using "power level" or the proper points system when selecting armies.
I can see it now, the local Tau player insisting that power level is "close enough, I swear!" as he pulls out 14 Riptides with every possible upgrade, the cheesy git.
Points system for me, please. I don't really see any reason to have an "approximate" points system when the precise points system exists. It's like installing a second speedometer, except this one says you're going "Oh, I dunno, like 50 mph or so I guess," while the proper one tells you the exact speed. Why would you ever bother with less precision when more precision is available? Is the mere seconds of savings on basic arithmetic really worth the inevitable loss of balance?
Gonna go ahead and say that the power level system isn't intended for someone who goes to a pickup game anticipating an argument over lists
NinthMusketeer wrote:I read the article and came here to read epic rage over summoning costing full points. I am surprised and somewhat impressed.
You and I have discussed my feelings on AoS summoning ad nauseum, but as much as I dislike this solution to summoning, I don't think I nor anyone else is really surprised.
Grimdakka wrote: I'm not looking forward to my first argument over whether we're using "power level" or the proper points system when selecting armies.
I can see it now, the local Tau player insisting that power level is "close enough, I swear!" as he pulls out 14 Riptides with every possible upgrade, the cheesy git.
Points system for me, please. I don't really see any reason to have an "approximate" points system when the precise points system exists. It's like installing a second speedometer, except this one says you're going "Oh, I dunno, like 50 mph or so I guess," while the proper one tells you the exact speed. Why would you ever bother with less precision when more precision is available? Is the mere seconds of savings on basic arithmetic really worth the inevitable loss of balance?
unless those riptides are 300 points a pop... Then he could plop 3 down and lose becuase no objectives while you take a humongous amount or MEQ.
We don't know enough nor will we know how the lack of templates will affect those weapons. Too early to assume still I think.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Now I can kind of see what some people have been saying, about being worried that tournament gamers are helping so much to refine the rules. People always say that a tightly balanced set of tournament friendly rules benefits everyone, including the more narrative gamers. But now I'm thinking that's not really true.
I'm starting to suspect that a lot of the little details that don't make sense are in there for "balance" or tournament purposes. For example, someone probably noticed that the striking scorpions aren't good against space marines. Because most armies have space marines in them, they pointed out that nobody is going to take striking scorpions to a tournament unless they can do something in a game against a space marine army. So they make mandiblasters cause mortal wounds to make them a more attractive choice to the tournament gamer, while not making any sense and breaking a bit of the immersion for some of the more narrative gamers that play the game in order to experience the background on the tabletop.
I like a lot of the major changes to the rules, but whether or not I enjoy the game will probably come down to the missions and all the little details on the individual units. And I'm beginning to worry that they are going to get a lot of the details wrong in their willingness to sacrifice immersion for balance.
+1
I hope you are wrong, but I also have picked up on this when they said orders are automatic for Guard. I know they are trying to streamline but still...
..Why is balance bad again?
Because of that thing I just said. Which you even quoted. Just read the above posts you quoted.
I did.. It just seems so strange because any game of 40k on the tabletop is nowhere near immersive compared to the fluff. Indeed it would be disastrous if they were to come anywhere close given that a space marine can deal with an entire Ork Boy Horde, a terminator should survive being stepped on by a Titan, Kharn managed to slaughter two massive legions down to Warbands, Mugan Ra held off an entire Hive Fleet by himself...
I value Balance over Immersion because at the end of the day, it's still very much a game and that trumps slight bits of immersion.
Points system for me, please. I don't really see any reason to have an "approximate" points system when the precise points system exists. It's like installing a second speedometer, except this one says you're going "Oh, I dunno, like 50 mph or so I guess," while the proper one tells you the exact speed. Why would you ever bother with less precision when more precision is available? Is the mere seconds of savings on basic arithmetic really worth the inevitable loss of balance?
I work in science. I can assure you that there is such a thing as too much precision for the application.
Matched Play is designed to be as balanced as possible, thus the higher precision of points is required. Narrative/Open does not need to be. If you want to play Narrative and it still bothers you, you're free to use points.
They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.
Narrative missions won't be even. Matched play will be.
You can have 2000 pts vs 1500 just as easily as 10 power level vs 75. It's just 2 point systems. No inheritent difference. One is just more granular.
People have used uneven points for decades. How 8th ed points would be less suited for that?
The difference between the 2 is that one takes up to 15 minutes and a helper program to do properly and the other you can do in less than a minute off the top of your head.
Basically if you didn't print off your list before you left, powerlevel is a godsend.
They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.
Narrative missions won't be even. Matched play will be.
You can have 2000 pts vs 1500 just as easily as 10 power level vs 75. It's just 2 point systems. No inheritent difference. One is just more granular.
People have used uneven points for decades. How 8th ed points would be less suited for that?
No no. I mean GW will publish missions for Narrative games using power levels and missions for Matched play games. The Matched play missions won't be asymmetrical.
They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.
Narrative missions won't be even. Matched play will be.
You can have 2000 pts vs 1500 just as easily as 10 power level vs 75. It's just 2 point systems. No inheritent difference. One is just more granular.
People have used uneven points for decades. How 8th ed points would be less suited for that?
The difference between the 2 is that one takes up to 15 minutes and a helper program to do properly and the other you can do in less than a minute off the top of your head.
Basically if you didn't print off your list before you left, powerlevel is a godsend.
It also doesn't prompt the same level of anxiety during the construction and painting phase of army building. If there's an upgrade that I want to build because it looks cool, I don't get stymied by worries that the upgrade isn't points-efficient and uncompetitive. Anything that reduces potential barriers to play a game are great in my book. I've got enough on my plate in life that I don't need extra things to futz with prior to gaming during the brief opportunities I get to do so.
I didn't hear about one being scheduled. That said, there is supposed to be a Q&A2(: Heretical Boogaloo) article up sometime before the new edition launches.
power levels are more for games with your buddies that are light hearted, fun and more narritive. a "cheesy Tau git" isn't someone they intent for PLs to be for
I get the intention, I just don't understand why you wouldn't just use the regular points system even in a more light-hearted game.
I work in science. I can assure you that there is such a thing as too much precision for the application.
Matched Play is designed to be as balanced as possible, thus the higher precision of points is required. Narrative/Open does not need to be. If you want to play Narrative and it still bothers you, you're free to use points.
Sure, and I work in computer science, so I understand that precision can be a finnicky thing that sometimes needs to be limited, but we're not talking about significant figures and infinitely repeating decimals here, we're just talking about measuring something accurately vs. measuring something approximately.
A more applicable example might be building a house. When you're measuring your stud placement, do you say they need to be placed "about a foot and a half apart is probably fine," or do you say, "they need to be 16" apart?"
I understand the intention of the power level system, it just seems like it has no business in existing when we already have a much better and more accurate system. Why even use it at all? Again, is the small amount of time saved on arithmetic really worth it?
I didn't hear about one being scheduled. That said, there is supposed to be a Q&A2(: Heretical Boogaloo) article up sometime before the new edition launches.
Pete Foley said on Twitter that he and Andy Smillie will be answering questions again, and I assumed that meant live but maybe it will be an article. I thought it was supposed to happen today, but looking at it again it just said to get questions in by Friday and it looks like they're doing the Q&A next week.
I didn't hear about one being scheduled. That said, there is supposed to be a Q&A2(: Heretical Boogaloo) article up sometime before the new edition launches.
Pete Foley said on Twitter that he and Andy Smillie will be answering questions again, and I assumed that meant live but maybe it will be an article. I thought it was supposed to happen today, but looking at it again it just said to get questions in by Friday and it looks like they're doing the Q&A next week.
I didn't hear about one being scheduled. That said, there is supposed to be a Q&A2(: Heretical Boogaloo) article up sometime before the new edition launches.
Pete Foley said on Twitter that he and Andy Smillie will be answering questions again, and I assumed that meant live but maybe it will be an article. I thought it was supposed to happen today, but looking at it again it just said to get questions in by Friday and it looks like they're doing the Q&A next week.
Ah. I haven't been really looking at Twitter recently so I missed that. I'm betting on an article over another live stream even but who knows.
ClockworkZion wrote: So...are we freaking out over power levels because that's the only news today, or did we forget that they were mentioned in the original Q&A GW did?
Beause it's old hat and all we really learned is where the preverbial ruler that is the Tactical Space Marine sits in the new edition.
It's pretty tame today. It's all we really have to talk about though.
I'm trying to draw out interesting nuggets as best I can!
Sure, and I work in computer science, so I understand that precision can be a finnicky thing that sometimes needs to be limited, but we're not talking about significant figures and infinitely repeating decimals here, we're just talking about measuring something accurately vs. measuring something approximately.
A more applicable example might be building a house. When you're measuring your stud placement, do you say they need to be placed "about a foot and a half apart is probably fine," or do you say, "they need to be 16" apart?"
I understand the intention of the power level system, it just seems like it has no business in existing when we already have a much better and more accurate system. Why even use it at all? Again, is the small amount of time saved on arithmetic really worth it?
Again: Narrative/Open are designed to support unbalanced scenarios, either in army composition, setup, or ingame effects. If you can't put a mathematic point value on that imbalance, then there's not much point in assuring both armies are within a micron of each other competitively, because once the game starts it won't matter. In your analogy, it would be like measuring the exact distance between two beams, but then fudging the height of the cross bar. If you're going to fudge part of it, there's no use in being super-accurate with the rest of it.
I would also argue that the time savings are not as small as you suggest, and that other posts in this thread indicate the same. But YMMV on that.
I'm liking the power level discussion. The idea that the points will be on a separate sheet will be annoying when it comes to list-building (or maybe having it all right there will be better, I don't know?) but I will swallow that because it seems that it will allow them to make points tweaks easily if they need to.
rollawaythestone wrote: I'm liking the power level discussion. The idea that the points will be on a separate sheet will be annoying when it comes to list-building (or maybe having it all right there will be better, I don't know?) but I will swallow that because it seems that it will allow them to make points tweaks easily if they need to.
The way it works in the new Kharadron Overlords book is that points are all on a table at the very end of the book, labeled "Pitched Battle Profiles".
power levels are more for games with your buddies that are light hearted, fun and more narritive. a "cheesy Tau git" isn't someone they intent for PLs to be for
I get the intention, I just don't understand why you wouldn't just use the regular points system even in a more light-hearted game.
I work in science. I can assure you that there is such a thing as too much precision for the application.
Matched Play is designed to be as balanced as possible, thus the higher precision of points is required. Narrative/Open does not need to be. If you want to play Narrative and it still bothers you, you're free to use points.
Sure, and I work in computer science, so I understand that precision can be a finnicky thing that sometimes needs to be limited, but we're not talking about significant figures and infinitely repeating decimals here, we're just talking about measuring something accurately vs. measuring something approximately.
A more applicable example might be building a house. When you're measuring your stud placement, do you say they need to be placed "about a foot and a half apart is probably fine," or do you say, "they need to be 16" apart?"
I understand the intention of the power level system, it just seems like it has no business in existing when we already have a much better and more accurate system. Why even use it at all? Again, is the small amount of time saved on arithmetic really worth it?
To me, the difference between Power Levels and Points is like the difference between cooking and baking. In baking it's real important to use the exact amount in the recipe, or else you're going to end up with a mess. In cooking, you can be a little looser about what you add to the pan and still have the end result taste good.
If you're trying to create the perfect cake of a competitive tournament, you use points. If you're just whipping something up as an experiment for dinner with friends, you can cook with power levels.
ClockworkZion wrote: So...are we freaking out over power levels because that's the only news today, or did we forget that they were mentioned in the original Q&A GW did?
Beause it's old hat and all we really learned is where the preverbial ruler that is the Tactical Space Marine sits in the new edition.
It's pretty tame today. It's all we really have to talk about though.
I'm trying to draw out interesting nuggets as best I can!
This is definitely an article that would have worked well with a Faction Focus to go with it since there is so little to digest.
The good news is we can start judging where things fall in the new edition thanks to the Tact Marine info.
Regarding an earlier prediction about Rubrics: I'm betting on cheaper instead of the same costs. AP3 weapons became -2 Rend which gives anything with a 4+ or better a save instead of negating anything that isn't a 2+. This tones down how many models that can kill in a round of shooting, and makes them more generalist than before. I could see them dropping into the upper teens with the change for the Rubrics proper (say about 18 points each) since they still have perks over Tacts, but don't have the faster movement and may not have pistols (since we see no listing on what each model comes with base it's hard to tell. Looks like we got a modified datasheet to withhold some information).
So some buffs, but some nerfs to make them cheaper and more likely to see the table, and in greater numbers. At least that's my guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
theocracity wrote: To me, the difference between Power Levels and Points is like the difference between cooking and baking. In baking it's real important to use the exact amount in the recipe, or else you're going to end up with a mess. In cooking, you can be a little looser about what you add to the pan and still have the end result taste good.
If you're trying to create the perfect cake of a competitive tournament, you use points. If you're just whipping something up as an experiment for dinner with friends, you can cook with power levels.
My mother would disagree, but she is the kind of heretic witch that can somehow estimate ingrediants and bake a cake successfully without formal measuring.
One more point: a lot of people are saying power levels are for new players, which is correct. But it's also for hobbyists who just want to get models on the table and have some fun without needing a binder, a calculator, and an up-to-date knowledge of the meta to play.
There's a lot more of us out there than you'd think, and having a rough measuring stick of army power drops the barrier to showing up at the local store with your models and dice substantially.
My mother would disagree, but she is the kind of heretic witch that can somehow estimate ingrediants and bake a cake successfully without formal measuring.
Something tells me your mother would have been a terror with the old Guess range artillery dice.
With the broad similarity in rules, part of me is wondering if any Chaos Daemon units will resemble their Age of Sigmar counter-parts in function?
I kind of hope so as I just bought a metric crap-ton of Slaanesh stuff for AoS, and would love to see it being a viable rush-down, close-combat, army in 8th.
This is definitely an article that would have worked well with a Faction Focus to go with it since there is so little to digest.
The good news is we can start judging where things fall in the new edition thanks to the Tact Marine info.
Regarding an earlier prediction about Rubrics: I'm betting on cheaper instead of the same costs. AP3 weapons became -2 Rend which gives anything with a 4+ or better a save instead of negating anything that isn't a 2+. This tones down how many models that can kill in a round of shooting, and makes them more generalist than before. I could see them dropping into the upper teens with the change for the Rubrics proper (say about 18 points each) since they still have perks over Tacts, but don't have the faster movement and may not have pistols (since we see no listing on what each model comes with base it's hard to tell. Looks like we got a modified datasheet to withhold some information).
So some buffs, but some nerfs to make them cheaper and more likely to see the table, and in greater numbers. At least that's my guess.
Somewhat hilariously they all hit on 3s in melee now.
You're right about being a generalist. Their damage smoothed out into a nice curve. I wonder if one of those keywords still keeps them from doing overwatch.
I'm happy to see the two list building methods. We have a relatively small playing group here and we'd love to have more people join us but many of them are scared off by the complexity of the game currently. One guy plays but he doesn't "get" the list building part so he has us build him TAC lists so he can just focus on learning the game right now. Power levels seems like they'd be nice for getting new players into the game quickly and for beer and pretzel games with friends. It's a simpler alternative to matched play points that will still offer a level of balance, not as much as matched points play but "good enough" that the game won't be a ridiculous stomp. The game still hinges on other factors such as player tactics and dice rolling so for a fun game power level should be adequate enough to use.
For pick-up games at the local FLGS I'd still pre-write a list to bring with matched points, it's the safer bet for balance after all and I'd expect almost all tournies to run the matched point system. At the end of the day both systems are given to us and if you don't like one of them you're free to not use it (I suspect many players will write off power points right at launch which is fine). If I read things right it seems even if you run power levels your list building is still restricted by the FOC so that's another balancing factor that should stop some ridiculous lists. It's not like running power levels is like agreeing to play unbound after all.
Maybe the multi-melta won't be Heavy at all, and will instead be Rapid Fire? One shot at 24" or two shots at 12" with no penalty for moving? That would be worth a lot of points.
Daedalus81 wrote: If you're trying to create the perfect cake of a competitive tournament, you use points. If you're just whipping something up as an experiment for dinner with friends, you can cook with power levels.
My mother would disagree, but she is the kind of heretic witch that can somehow estimate ingrediants and bake a cake successfully without formal measuring.
I've generally found baking to be very forgiving. I might not always get exactly what I was originally thinking, but it's almost always something good.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems likely that a lot of the time people would want to throw in cool toys for narrative play, so units would tend to have lots of upgrades. If they are assigning Power Level points with the assumption of lots of upgrades then it doesn't seem like it would be a big problem unless there was a fluff reason for someone to take very few upgrades.
For excessively large games, I'm liking power level as an alternative. When I'm throwing down a marine company plus support elements, it seems wrong to be deliberating as to whether or not that squad is getting a lascannon or ML based on the points. Apoc-level games take long enough to play, if we can do setup and army building in a few minutes without too much delving then it's a win.
Normal points are still good for smaller-scale games, but if my friends want to do a 2v2 5000 point game because we hate our free time, then this simplifies things a lot.
Ronin_eX wrote: For excessively large games, I'm liking power level as an alternative. When I'm throwing down a marine company plus support elements, it seems wrong to be deliberating as to whether or not that squad is getting a lascannon or ML based on the points. Apoc-level games take long enough to play, if we can do setup and army building in a few minutes without too much delving then it's a win.
Normal points are still good for smaller-scale games, but if my friends want to do a 2v2 5000 point game because we hate our free time,then this simplifies things a lot.
As someone who runs a lot of Devastator Squads, the jacked up price for heavy weapons has me worried quite a bit. If a Tactical Squad is 65 pts for 5 minis, and MM cost 27 pts, that is 173 pts for the squad of Devastators (since the Tac, Assault, Dev Squads had the same base price). That is a pretty big increase in cost. Hopefully Lascannons and Missile Launchers will be cheaper, since those are the variants I run.
"No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.
They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.
I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.
They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source. The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.
I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.
Well its also a new game and they clearly didnt want that in there.
and ether way that abusive summoning is gone so now we get to find out what else we get to abuse now. hopefully nothing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.
They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.
I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.
Is it reactive if they wipe the board clean and begin with X instead of Y from last time? Maybe but it sounds like they are taking a leaf from FFG and giving themselves wiggle room
H.B.M.C. wrote: "No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.
They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source. The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.
I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.
Well its also a new game and they clearly didnt want that in there.
and ether way that abusive summoning is gone so now we get to find out what else we get to abuse now. hopefully nothing.
casvalremdeikun wrote: As someone who runs a lot of Devastator Squads, the jacked up price for heavy weapons has me worried quite a bit. If a Tactical Squad is 65 pts for 5 minis, and MM cost 27 pts, that is 173 pts for the squad of Devastators (since the Tac, Assault, Dev Squads had the same base price). That is a pretty big increase in cost. Hopefully Lascannons and Missile Launchers will be cheaper, since those are the variants I run.
Apples to Oranges my friend. Devastator squad now and in 7th are different animals.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.
They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.
I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.
Is it reactive if they wipe the board clean and begin with X instead of Y from last time? Maybe but it sounds like they are taking a leaf from FFG and giving themselves wiggle room
Age of Sigmar's largest tournament is the SouthCoast GT. During the...probably 2016 tournament they used rules just like these but the units summoned were discounted 25%.
Something like 8 out of the top ten lists were summoning based. Even with only 25% bonus on less than half of their army. It's not really reactionary so much as it is a holding action. They want to start at the baseline and then see if it needs tweaks up, not start at the top and need to emergency patch it down. THAT would be reactionary.
The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.
They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.
I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.
Is it reactive if they wipe the board clean and begin with X instead of Y from last time? Maybe but it sounds like they are taking a leaf from FFG and giving themselves wiggle room
Age of Sigmar's largest tournament is the SouthCoast GT. During the...probably 2016 tournament they used rules just like these but the units summoned were discounted 25%.
Something like 8 out of the top ten lists were summoning based. Even with only 25% bonus on less than half of their army. It's not really reactionary so much as it is a holding action. They want to start at the baseline and then see if it needs tweaks up, not start at the top and need to emergency patch it down. THAT would be reactionary.
It means that versatility was great but the points reduction is big.
Still if each Guant from the Tervigon is only worth a few points then I would not mind setting aside 120 points or so for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fenris-77 wrote: The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.
Likely means I have the stats near to right. 2d6 Damage with rolling 3d6 taking the highest 2.
Fenris-77 wrote: The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.
That and now moving with heavy weapons is just -1 to hit instead of needing 6's. For your devs that means they hit on 4's while on the move, that's also a pretty big advantage over the current devs.
casvalremdeikun wrote: As someone who runs a lot of Devastator Squads, the jacked up price for heavy weapons has me worried quite a bit. If a Tactical Squad is 65 pts for 5 minis, and MM cost 27 pts, that is 173 pts for the squad of Devastators (since the Tac, Assault, Dev Squads had the same base price). That is a pretty big increase in cost. Hopefully Lascannons and Missile Launchers will be cheaper, since those are the variants I run.
Apples to Oranges my friend. Devastator squad now and in 7th are different animals.
I hope they are different for the better. I only have four Squads in my Crimson Fists and one for my Blood Angels. Other than Sternguard, Devastators are my favorite unit in the game. Hopefully Imperial/Crimson Fists still have the best Devastators in the game.
Fenris-77 wrote: The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.
That and now moving with heavy weapons is just -1 to hit instead of needing 6's. For your devs that means they hit on 4's while on the move, that's also a pretty big advantage over the current devs.
On the whole the price increase seems reasonable to me. At the very least it comes with upgrades, so I'm cool with it. I'm also happy with the idea that the cost of the weapons might result in more models and less upgrades in an average game.
So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.
I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.
Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.
I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.
Have they said how declaring targets will work yet? If it is done one unit at a time that seems like it would be incentive to run mixed weapons in Devastator squads. If it is done model-by-model or the whole army at once then that particular incentive to mix weapons would go away.
I'm guessing death guard will get no penalty for moving when firing heavy weapons as well. The regular Marine has 6" move? If Tsons has 5" move then and probably DG Also gets 5" move. If this is the chase, it's a pretty big nerf for DG. They used to be able to walk 6", fire heavy-/rapid fire weapons with no penalty, then charge(relentless) when most other marines could walk 6", shoot with -3 to hit(snap shots) for heavy-/rapid fire weapons and not being able to charge. Now all marines gets -1 and can charge after shooting heavy-/rapid fire weapons.
So basically DG only get -1" move and +1 when firing heavy weapons. Huge nerf.
killerpenguin wrote: I'm guessing death guard will get no penalty for moving when firing heavy weapons as well. The regular Marine has 6" move? If Tsons has 5" move then and probably DG Also gets 5" move. If this is the chase, it's a pretty big nerf for DG. They used to be able to walk 6", fire heavy-/rapid fire weapons with no penalty, then charge(relentless) when most other marines could walk 6", shoot with -3 to hit(snap shots) for heavy-/rapid fire weapons and not being able to charge.
I imagine to counteract this "nerf", they will have clouds of pestilence or something so nearby enemy units get debuffed.
Flood wrote: So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.
I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.
Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.
I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.
Totally formula based balancing is just a flawed, only for different reasons. I will say that being able to see HOW they came to the conclusion that things are worth what they're worth would be valuable.
Flood wrote: So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.
I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.
Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.
I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.
You can't balance a game of this complexity with a formula. What's the relative value of a point of Move or a point of BS? On an Assault termie? On a Fire Warrior? The level of intuitive understanding of the game required to even construct a formula makes the formula unnecessary.
Flood wrote: So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.
I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.
Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.
I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.
It's kind of hard to say that it wasn't arrived at by any objective means when we have no points of comparison.
Just look at a transparent point system like Infinity's. The only reason it is transparent is because I have hundreds of examples and I can cross-reference those to determine and predict what something should cost.
GW have given us a single trooper profiles cost, and two weapons that we haven't stats for yet. So yeah, they'll seem arbitrary because we can only get a point of reference in a given point system if we can compare.
May turn out that it still is arbitrary, but it is kind of impossible to know that from what we've been given. Hell, even if we got the full cost of a tactical squad and all of its options, we wouldn't have context as to what it all means until we see at least one or two more squads to know what relative things should be worth.
Way too early to tell how or why things cost what they do and whether or not there is a new point system or if things have been hand-tweaked. Basically, GW are still tapdancing around giving us full context and I doubt this will change before release. We can't even use the revealed power levels of tacticals and rubrics to reverse engineer what we think the differences might be because we don't even have context to know whether power level is based directly on an abstract version of points or not!
More than likely points aren't based per model, but per unit.
I realised this when I was working on my vehicle/monstrous creature design rules update. I then started working on infantry and discovered their points system was based on the unit.
Is Marines any pay points for a bolter, bolt pistol, and grenades. A unit of them does. Any upgrades taken are paid for with a standardised system to cover the versatility granted by said weapon.
Spoiler:
Built a d10 "create a unit" universal wargame using this concept instead of attempting to crack the entire code of gw
I realised this when I was working on my vehicle/monstrous creature design rules update. I then started working on infantry and discovered their points system was based on the unit.
Is Marines any pay points for a bolter, bolt pistol, and grenades. A unit of them does. Any upgrades taken are paid for with a standardised system to cover the versatility granted by said weapon.
Spoiler:
Built a d10 "create a unit" universal wargame using this concept instead of attempting to crack the entire code of gw
ERJAK wrote: I will say that being able to see HOW they came to the conclusion that things are worth what they're worth would be valuable.
I can see the logic others have pointed out, that the complexity of the game and variables render a static formula unusable, thank you for the replies and considered thoughts.
I too would dearly like to see how they arrived at the current values, if only to feel more confident in their perception of how the game is balanced.
Hopefully the power level system also works competently for quick match-ups that scale well.
Encouraged to read that they are more open to tweaking balance without affecting core rules/stats also.
From the looks of it, so far, units that used to have rules like Relentless or Slow And Purposeful have just been given a slower speed. Whether or not Rapid Fire and Heavy Weapons prevent Charging will help determine that as well. Obviously that mindset doesn't work across the board because several fast units like Death Company and Space Marine Bikes had Relentless, so a slow move on them would make zero sense. I really wish GW would come out and say if Rapid Fire or Heavy prevents charging. If it does, expect things like Terminators and Bikes to have a bespoke rule that bypasses that.
casvalremdeikun wrote: From the looks of it, so far, units that used to have rules like Relentless or Slow And Purposeful have just been given a slower speed. Whether or not Rapid Fire and Heavy Weapons prevent Charging will help determine that as well. Obviously that mindset doesn't work across the board because several fast units like Death Company and Space Marine Bikes had Relentless, so a slow move on them would make zero sense. I really wish GW would come out and say if Rapid Fire or Heavy prevents charging. If it does, expect things like Terminators and Bikes to have a bespoke rule that bypasses that.
The Rubric keyword could remove their ability to overwatch. Although maybe not...the Thousand Sons keyword likely wouldn't either. Hmm that could be quite nice.
Lysenis wrote: You can't balance it at this low of points
It does not have to.
The power level caters to the Non-Competitive player. You know the guy (Like me) who just likes to show up and blow the of each other. This makes it so he can pull out a 50-100 point army, place it in his Army Bag and show up to just have some fun win or lose. He might no what he will face when he walks out the door, but he knows the two forces will be in the same neighborhood of power.
killerpenguin wrote: I'm guessing death guard will get no penalty for moving when firing heavy weapons as well. The regular Marine has 6" move? If Tsons has 5" move then and probably DG Also gets 5" move. If this is the chase, it's a pretty big nerf for DG. They used to be able to walk 6", fire heavy-/rapid fire weapons with no penalty, then charge(relentless) when most other marines could walk 6", shoot with -3 to hit(snap shots) for heavy-/rapid fire weapons and not being able to charge. Now all marines gets -1 and can charge after shooting heavy-/rapid fire weapons.
So basically DG only get -1" move and +1 when firing heavy weapons. Huge nerf.
So they'll probably drop in points to compensate.
Also I imaginenthe Blight Head Grenades might deny charging units the ability to go auto-first, or be throwable to muck with anothermunit,s ability to shoot or something.
I realised this when I was working on my vehicle/monstrous creature design rules update. I then started working on infantry and discovered their points system was based on the unit.
Is Marines any pay points for a bolter, bolt pistol, and grenades. A unit of them does. Any upgrades taken are paid for with a standardised system to cover the versatility granted by said weapon.
Spoiler:
Built a d10 "create a unit" universal wargame using this concept instead of attempting to crack the entire code of gw
Rubrics run entirely contrary to that.
How so? Do they all come unequipped with weapons and you buy them singularly with a base unit size of 1?
The rubric marines paid for relentless, ap3 weapons, defense, and fearless as a unit. Any upgrades are done on a per model basis.
How so? Do they all come unequipped with weapons and you buy them singularly with a base unit size of 1?
The rubric marines paid for relentless, ap3 weapons, defense, and fearless as a unit. Any upgrades are done on a per model basis.
They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.
Narrative missions won't be even. Matched play will be.
You can have 2000 pts vs 1500 just as easily as 10 power level vs 75. It's just 2 point systems. No inheritent difference. One is just more granular.
People have used uneven points for decades. How 8th ed points would be less suited for that?
The difference between the 2 is that one takes up to 15 minutes and a helper program to do properly and the other you can do in less than a minute off the top of your head.
Basically if you didn't print off your list before you left, powerlevel is a godsend.
It also doesn't prompt the same level of anxiety during the construction and painting phase of army building. If there's an upgrade that I want to build because it looks cool, I don't get stymied by worries that the upgrade isn't points-efficient and uncompetitive. Anything that reduces potential barriers to play a game are great in my book. I've got enough on my plate in life that I don't need extra things to futz with prior to gaming during the brief opportunities I get to do so.
I'm actually kind of excited to try power level games for the same reason. When you're working with points efficiency in mind it's nearly impossible to satisfy the side-urge for "just so" neatness/cool factor.
Like, I might love to have two tidy units of 10x Genestealers. But a must-have upgrade on my Hive Tyrant might force me to settle on one unit of 8x Genestealers and one unit of 9x Genestealers. The army works better, but doesn't hit that sweet-spot of symmetry/intangible coolness.
Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer
Smite Psychic Power
Asurman's Sword of Asur
Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase
While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?
Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.
The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.
Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.
alextroy wrote: Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer
Smite Psychic Power
Asurman's Sword of Asur
Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase
While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?
Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.
The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.
Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.
If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>
alextroy wrote: Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer
Smite Psychic Power
Asurman's Sword of Asur
Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase
While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?
Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.
The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.
Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.
If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>
alextroy wrote: Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer
Smite Psychic Power
Asurman's Sword of Asur
Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase
While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?
Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.
The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.
Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.
If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>
Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?
Yeah, depends on how much damage was done to it first, which the new degenerating effect on vehicles represents. Maybe something managed to expose the core, which a lucky shot off managed to hit.
alextroy wrote: Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer
Smite Psychic Power
Asurman's Sword of Asur
Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase
While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?
Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.
The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.
Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.
If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>
Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?
It is the more fluff appropiate answer: they get aboard and kill the crew or sabotage the reactor, or generally break it frommthe inside.
I figured if we want to get cramky about it, I'm just going to fluff it in my head that they got inside on teir charge and made a mess there instead of on the outside. At least it makes sense and is as fluffy as this unicorn:
JohnnyHell wrote: A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.
That's not what I said. What I said was that changing the rule to the polar opposite seems reactionary, as if no attempt to find a middle ground was found.
All dancing, all summoning was an obvious bad, But is the exact opposite that an obvious good? Were Tervigons tearing up the tournament scene? Were a few extra bases of Scarabs ruining the lives of everyone who fought Necrons?
Not every problem requires the sledgehammer approach.
alextroy wrote: Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer
Smite Psychic Power
Asurman's Sword of Asur
Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase
While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?
Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.
The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.
Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.
If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>
Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?
It is the more fluff appropiate answer: they get aboard and kill the crew or sabotage the reactor, or generally break it frommthe inside.
I figured if we want to get cramky about it, I'm just going to fluff it in my head that they got inside on teir charge and made a mess there instead of on the outside. At least it makes sense and is as fluffy as this unicorn:
In other words that a what they get for letting infantry in close. I do remember what was it Titanicus... What's that the Hours Heresy Titan book? That book brought up the need for ground troops.
On a side note, that is also my fluff for a War pin Spider kill since everything can hurt everything
Galas wrote: And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!
What story did that happen in? That's sounds amazing!
Galas wrote: And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!
Clearly the crew died to his Impact Hits. Also it's only fluffy enough if he keeps the still burning skulls of the crew as trophies on his bike.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but...I'm cautiously optimistic about this new 40k, as I'm hearing a lot of the right things from these previews. If Power Levels are much like the points in Warmachine (units have fixed numbers and equipment, points are less granular) then I could even see that being a valid way to play.
It's going to depend - what killed 40k for me before is excessive randomness and die rolling (as it can reduce player agency and slow the game down), complete departure from the background in terms of army building (thanks to the insanity of flyers, titans and allies), and the complete disregard for any kind of balance (which I don't think anyone would debate). The latter sounds like it is being addressed (though whether this the usual pendulum swing remains to be seen), and it seems that thanks to the new vehicle rules, Knights et al won't be so utterly untouchable by 'standard' arms so perhaps their prevalence will lessen. The fact that random charge ranges seem to have stuck, though, bodes poorly for the first problem.
I'm unlikely to come back with my wallet open (been burned one too many times), but I can honestly envision playing this new 40k with the many armies I already own - and I would openly admit to being one of the biggest GW cynics I know.
I genuinely hope it pans out this time, and doesn't turn to pudding in their hands again.
Galas wrote: And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!
What story did that happen in? That's sounds amazing!
Wazdakka Gutsmek was the Ork in question and he was an Ork Special Character up throughh 5th edition until 6th axed any characters without models.
Still a darn good bit of lore though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lysenis wrote: In other words that a what they get for letting infantry in close. I do remember what was it Titanicus... What's that the Hours Heresy Titan book? That book brought up the need for ground troops.
On a side note, that is also my fluff for a War pin Spider kill since everything can hurt everything
Titanicus was an Abnett story set in "modern" 40k. I don't remember the HH book, probably haven't gotten around to it yet.
Sadly ground infantry doesn't protect against Ork Tellyportas stealing the crew out of the cockpit ala Redemption Corps.
Galas wrote: And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!
What story did that happen in? That's sounds amazing!
Wazdakka Gutsmek was the Ork in question and he was an Ork Special Character up throughh 5th edition until 6th axed any characters without models.
Still a darn good bit of lore though.
Thanks! They must have skipped him in 3rd Edition.
JohnnyHell wrote: A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.
That's not what I said. What I said was that changing the rule to the polar opposite seems reactionary, as if no attempt to find a middle ground was found.
All dancing, all summoning was an obvious bad, But is the exact opposite that an obvious good? Were Tervigons tearing up the tournament scene? Were a few extra bases of Scarabs ruining the lives of everyone who fought Necrons?
Not every problem requires the sledgehammer approach.
Summoning in narrative and open play don't sound like they'll involve points. It's only in the competitive focused Matched Play games when summon points will crop up, and it's at this level where the imbalance matters.
alextroy wrote: Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer
Smite Psychic Power
Asurman's Sword of Asur
Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase
While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?
Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.
The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.
Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.
If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>
Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?
It is the more fluff appropiate answer: they get aboard and kill the crew or sabotage the reactor, or generally break it frommthe inside.
I figured if we want to get cramky about it, I'm just going to fluff it in my head that they got inside on teir charge and made a mess there instead of on the outside. At least it makes sense and is as fluffy as this unicorn:
In other words that a what they get for letting infantry in close. I do remember what was it Titanicus... What's that the Hours Heresy Titan book? That book brought up the need for ground troops.
On a side note, that is also my fluff for a War pin Spider kill since everything can hurt everything
This is exactly how we explained it in one of our old apocalypse games. My 2nd Inquisitional henchmen unit came in from reserves on his table edge (due to my apocalypse advantage) and fire 3 meltaguns (for the 2nd turn in a row) at an eldar titan, rolled well and blew it up. It didn't even explode. We explained that they blew a hole open, sent in the xenos purgation member (i.e. the suicide bomber) and blew up the titan from the inside out. Man those guys were my heroes, with some fancy transport maneuvers, they even survived the eldar ranger attempt at avenging their titan.
Leggy wrote: Summoning in narrative and open play don't sound like they'll involve points. It's only in the competitive focused Matched Play games when summon points will crop up, and it's at this level where the imbalance matters.
That doesn't really answer the point I made.
I'm aware of the imbalance that unlimited summoning can create - we've seen it in 40K already. My point is that a total heel turn on summoning doesn't seem like the best result. It's GW punishing all armies because they wrote rules that allowed certain specific armies to abuse it.
Leggy wrote: Summoning in narrative and open play don't sound like they'll involve points. It's only in the competitive focused Matched Play games when summon points will crop up, and it's at this level where the imbalance matters.
That doesn't really answer the point I made.
I'm aware of the imbalance that unlimited summoning can create - we've seen it in 40K already. My point is that a total heel turn on summoning doesn't seem like the best result. It's GW punishing all armies because they wrote rules that allowed certain specific armies to abuse it.
Leggy wrote: Summoning in narrative and open play don't sound like they'll involve points. It's only in the competitive focused Matched Play games when summon points will crop up, and it's at this level where the imbalance matters.
That doesn't really answer the point I made.
I'm aware of the imbalance that unlimited summoning can create - we've seen it in 40K already. My point is that a total heel turn on summoning doesn't seem like the best result. It's GW punishing all armies because they wrote rules that allowed certain specific armies to abuse it.
Did they release rules for the Tervigon or the Canoptek Spyder?
Leggy wrote: Summoning in narrative and open play don't sound like they'll involve points. It's only in the competitive focused Matched Play games when summon points will crop up, and it's at this level where the imbalance matters.
That doesn't really answer the point I made.
I'm aware of the imbalance that unlimited summoning can create - we've seen it in 40K already. My point is that a total heel turn on summoning doesn't seem like the best result. It's GW punishing all armies because they wrote rules that allowed certain specific armies to abuse it.
Did they release rules for the Tervigon or the Canoptek Spyder?
No. Using the AoS rules for Reinforcement Points as a precedent, both Tervigons and Canoptek Spyders 'summon' models.
Ghaz wrote: No. Using the AoS rules for Reinforcement Points as a precedent, both Tervigons and Canoptek Spyders 'summon' models.
Using the 7th Edition rules for those units and the AoS rules for summoning. However, we don't know what the 8th Edition rules will be yet. My understanding is that in AoS there are certain circumstances where models can be added to an existing unit, but the unit can't exceed its starting strength, and those models don't cost points. So maybe the Tervigon doesn't spawn new units of Termagants but instead a unit of Termagants within 6" can regain 1d6 models every turn?
No no. I mean GW will publish missions for Narrative games using power levels and missions for Matched play games. The Matched play missions won't be asymmetrical.
Those missions will work just as well with both. Both ways. Less granularity is not requirement for asymmetrical. People have been playing asymmetricals for years with granular points.
Only difference between them is that one is quicker to use but less accurate approximation of balance. Good fos quick games between friends. But neither has unique point that makes scenario works only with them. At it'" core both are points.
JohnnyHell wrote: A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.
That's not what I said. What I said was that changing the rule to the polar opposite seems reactionary, as if no attempt to find a middle ground was found.
All dancing, all summoning was an obvious bad, But is the exact opposite that an obvious good? Were Tervigons tearing up the tournament scene? Were a few extra bases of Scarabs ruining the lives of everyone who fought Necrons?
Not every problem requires the sledgehammer approach.
Until they tease summoning tomorrow (they did say tomorrow right?), then we can make better discussions on this.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I read the article and came here to read epic rage over summoning costing full points. I am surprised and somewhat impressed.
You and I have discussed my feelings on AoS summoning ad nauseum, but as much as I dislike this solution to summoning, I don't think I nor anyone else is really surprised.
Oh don't get me wrong--I am disappointed that they went with this approach because I feel it swings things too far the other way and just takes some of the fun out of summoning. But it's still an improvement over everything being free, yet when it hit in AoS the summon-spammers acted like it was the end of the world.
JohnnyHell wrote: A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.
Problem is in aos it went too far so summoning is joke. Flexibility not worth being underdog for a while and losing tons of points when summomer dies. Only help 40k has is bit harder to snipe charaltdr but you need to invest lots of points to ensure fast weapon platform doesn't leave you without summoner.
Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.
I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.
If they had used formula you could be 100% sure points are busted. More likely before they were stupid enough to use formula seeing mess they created.
JohnnyHell wrote: A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.
That's not what I said. What I said was that changing the rule to the polar opposite seems reactionary, as if no attempt to find a middle ground was found.
All dancing, all summoning was an obvious bad, But is the exact opposite that an obvious good? Were Tervigons tearing up the tournament scene? Were a few extra bases of Scarabs ruining the lives of everyone who fought Necrons?
Not every problem requires the sledgehammer approach.
I don't think I of approach is a bad thing. It's a totally different game, who cares if they are OP now?
Leggy wrote: Summoning in narrative and open play don't sound like they'll involve points. It's only in the competitive focused Matched Play games when summon points will crop up, and it's at this level where the imbalance matters.
That doesn't really answer the point I made.
I'm aware of the imbalance that unlimited summoning can create - we've seen it in 40K already. My point is that a total heel turn on summoning doesn't seem like the best result. It's GW punishing all armies because they wrote rules that allowed certain specific armies to abuse it.
It's a binary problem. Free points or no free points. Giving summoned units a cheaper cost is the same problem just watered down.
Really? I can think of a few possibilities:
1. New Players
2. People who want to run unbalanced missions (Meatgrinder, Ambush)
3. Casual players who don't want to muck with trying to perfectly fill points levels in
4. People looking for a pick up game with whatever they brought with them
JohnnyHell wrote: A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.
Problem is in aos it went too far so summoning is joke. Flexibility not worth being underdog for a while and losing tons of points when summomer dies. Only help 40k has is bit harder to snipe charaltdr but you need to invest lots of points to ensure fast weapon platform doesn't leave you without summoner.
Summoning is actually used quite alot in AoS tournaments. Both of the best death armies in scgt had quite many points reserved for summoning.
JohnnyHell wrote: A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.
That's not what I said. What I said was that changing the rule to the polar opposite seems reactionary, as if no attempt to find a middle ground was found.
All dancing, all summoning was an obvious bad, But is the exact opposite that an obvious good? Were Tervigons tearing up the tournament scene? Were a few extra bases of Scarabs ruining the lives of everyone who fought Necrons?
Not every problem requires the sledgehammer approach.
Here's the disconnect I have with your argument though HBMC: The scarabs and tervigon extra models were not summoning. Summon spam lists that wrecked tourneys were psychic summoning, these two units are not that. It's entirely possible that both the Tervigon and Canoptec spider have retained their ability to reinforce or make new units of scarabs and termagaunts, if this is the case I'd imagine a small portion of the points cost of these units may be rolled into the cost of the Tervigon and Spider themselves. I fully expect to see a model reinforcement mechanic to be built into both the Tervigon and Spider, neither of which we've seen the rules for yet so we have no way of knowing for sure at this time. What we do know is that psychic summoning has been changed a lot and in my opinion much to the benefit of the game. I feel you've seen a portion of a rule for one mechanic (psychic daemon summoning), correlated it to another unrelated mechanic (Tervigon birthing and spider scarab reinforcement) and somehow come to the conclusion that this is punishing armies? Perhaps you've jumped the gun on this?
Psychic summoning absolutely needed the axe, it was a ridiculous implementation from the get-go. The new method is much more reliable, maintains the tactical versatility of being able to select the right daemon for the job and since you pay points for those daemons is much more balanced, from what we've seen I'd say it's a win all around. You may disagree that the new summoning system is an improvement and that's definitely a matter worth discussing and looking in to even with our very limited knowledge of it right now but I feel that discussion has little (if anything) to do with the mechanics of a Tervigon, Canoptek Spider or even a Ghost Ark for that matter. The latter three will have rules specific to them that will dictate how they function apart from the core Daemon summoning rules.
Summoning is actually used quite alot in AoS tournaments. Both of the best death armies in scgt had quite many points reserved for summoning.
Yeah, despite the complaints on places like this there are competitive players (and good ones) who do not think 'summoning' in AoS is somehow too expensive in matched play. The ability to plonk down a unit where you want when you want in objective based games is huge. AoS matched play does not revolve around killing stuff to win, but objectives. A lot of people seem to forget that. Worrying about being at half strength, or how much you are losing models etc is misdirecting yourself as to what will or will not win you the game.
Crimson Devil wrote: It's a binary problem. Free points or no free points. Giving summoned units a cheaper cost is the same problem just watered down.
What alternative do you propose?
It's not a binary problem. It's a contextual problem. Unlimited summoning of power units like Daemons and Daemonic characters is obviously a major issue, something we all saw happen in current 40K. On the flip-side making a few Scarab bases is an order of magnitude different to the Daemon example.
The same solution needn't be applied to everything.
They say that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But there are different sized hammers. GW need not always go for the biggest one.
H.B.M.C. wrote: On the flip-side making a few Scarab bases is an order of magnitude different to the Daemon example.
They say that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But there are different sized hammers. GW need not always go for the biggest one.
So a few scarab bases might only cost 10 points vs 100 points for the daemons if that is the points cost. So the solution is a magnitude of order different?
Of course, If those few scarab bases will claim the objective as well as the few daemons then the problem may not be the same magnitude of order different at all. As you say context... If matched play is objective based then then they will have different solution to simple 'kill all' play
Inevitable_Faith wrote: Here's the disconnect I have with your argument though HBMC: The scarabs and tervigon extra models were not summoning.
The premise of my argument is that "Generating models during a game = Summoning". If that turns out to be a false premise, and that they are infact talking about summoning Daemons, as opposed to just the generation of new miniatures, then that's fine. In that instance you'll be 100% right, my argument will be flawed and I will in fact be fine with that.
My concern is that GW has looked at summoning Daemons and gone "Summoning bad! GW SMASH!" and just done this to anything that generates any miniatures in complete over reaction (ie. fixing the general rule when it was a specific rule causing the problem).
Inevitable_Faith wrote: Summon spam lists that wrecked tourneys were psychic summoning, these two units are not that. It's entirely possible that both the Tervigon and Canoptec spider have retained their ability to reinforce or make new units of scarabs and termagaunts, if this is the case I'd imagine a small portion of the points cost of these units may be rolled into the cost of the Tervigon and Spider themselves. I fully expect to see a model reinforcement mechanic to be built into both the Tervigon and Spider, neither of which we've seen the rules for yet so we have no way of knowing for sure at this time. What we do know is that psychic summoning has been changed a lot and in my opinion much to the benefit of the game. I feel you've seen a portion of a rule for one mechanic (psychic daemon summoning), correlated it to another unrelated mechanic (Tervigon birthing and spider scarab reinforcement) and somehow come to the conclusion that this is punishing armies? Perhaps you've jumped the gun on this?
Psychic summoning absolutely needed the axe, it was a ridiculous implementation from the get-go. The new method is much more reliable, maintains the tactical versatility of being able to select the right daemon for the job and since you pay points for those daemons is much more balanced, from what we've seen I'd say it's a win all around. You may disagree that the new summoning system is an improvement and that's definitely a matter worth discussing and looking in to even with our very limited knowledge of it right now but I feel that discussion has little (if anything) to do with the mechanics of a Tervigon, Canoptek Spider or even a Ghost Ark for that matter. The latter three will have rules specific to them that will dictate how they function apart from the core Daemon summoning rules.
I don't disagree with any of this, and I fully admit that we don't know what Tervigons or Tomb Spyders or any of them are actually going to do yet. I am simply expressing a concern that stems from an educated guess using GW's prior behaviour when it comes to "balancing".
I've also fully acknowledge that the constantly Daemon summoning was a bad thing, so people need to stop coming back at me was "But Daemon summoning was breaking the game! This change needed to happen!". I get it, but as I have said numerous times in this thread in one way or another, just because I'm concerned for an 8th Ed rules ---does not mean--- I am advocating for 7th Ed rules.
Grimdakka wrote: I'm not looking forward to my first argument over whether we're using "power level" or the proper points system when selecting armies.
I can see it now, the local Tau player insisting that power level is "close enough, I swear!" as he pulls out 14 Riptides with every possible upgrade, the cheesy git.
I dunno if it's a theoretical player you're referring to or an actual one. Either way, you probably don't want to play that guy anyway. He sounds like TFG and not a lot of fun regardless. Play someone like me next time you're in the area and we'll both have a bunch of fun without being dicks to one another.
Points system for me, please. I don't really see any reason to have an "approximate" points system when the precise points system exists. It's like installing a second speedometer, except this one says you're going "Oh, I dunno, like 50 mph or so I guess," while the proper one tells you the exact speed. Why would you ever bother with less precision when more precision is available? Is the mere seconds of savings on basic arithmetic really worth the inevitable loss of balance?
Ease of use. Speed of setup, etc. I hated the un-pointed nature of release-era AoS since there was absoloyely no way to balance anything beyond guesswork, but I'll happily use both Power Level and Points in games, depending on who I am playing and how we're playing. Power level is perfect for "Close-enough" points for friendly battles where I provide both armies built as fluffy forces for mates coming around for an evening of fun.
HBMC has made his position clear, but no-one is under any obligation to somehow disprove that view. That's not how this discussion thing works. We just disagree and move on. The subject of the thread is not "HBMC is right: discuss" (not being rude to HBMC here, to be clear, I'm just illustrating that the convo has gone a little circular and is eating itself).
No no. I mean GW will publish missions for Narrative games using power levels and missions for Matched play games. The Matched play missions won't be asymmetrical.
Ideally, they could have two sets of points for their published missions. That would be ideal, allowing such published missions to work for both PL-based and traditional pointed armies, but we'll see how it eventuates.
It also doesn't prompt the same level of anxiety during the construction and painting phase of army building. If there's an upgrade that I want to build because it looks cool, I don't get stymied by worries that the upgrade isn't points-efficient and uncompetitive. Anything that reduces potential barriers to play a game are great in my book. I've got enough on my plate in life that I don't need extra things to futz with prior to gaming during the brief opportunities I get to do so.
SO much this. I like to build forces that make thematic sense and model figures (and units) that follow the Rule of Cool over eking out the most competitive list and agonising over whether my IG should have Meltas or Plasmas this edition and exactly what the most effective loadout for my Russes is going to be and whether they should have sponsons or not for maximum efficiency.
Why would you ever bother with less precision when more precision is available? Is the mere seconds of savings on basic arithmetic really worth the inevitable loss of balance?
You do realise that precision and accuracy/balance are independent. The less precise system could in fact be more balanced, there is no inevitability about increased precision being more balanced at all.
Can't see it taking mere seconds extra either for most people.
I'm glad the summoning has had the nurf hammer, my first game of 40k when I come back to the hobby was daemons I was tabled turn 4 without killing any of his core army he summoned me to death, shot "beam magic" through my blobs he even managed to take 4 objectives.
Leggy wrote: Summoning in narrative and open play don't sound like they'll involve points. It's only in the competitive focused Matched Play games when summon points will crop up, and it's at this level where the imbalance matters.
That doesn't really answer the point I made.
I'm aware of the imbalance that unlimited summoning can create - we've seen it in 40K already. My point is that a total heel turn on summoning doesn't seem like the best result. It's GW punishing all armies because they wrote rules that allowed certain specific armies to abuse it.
You aren't taking into account the effectiveness of the units in the new game though. Maybe scarabs do have their place, and taking them for free could truly be game unbalancing. Remember they've said from the start, the goal is to build from the ground up to make ALL units effective and have their role.
They should have just made spyders and term's transports from the get go anyway to be honest. Free points, models, upgrades in any and all of its forms is wrong for the game, narrative or competitive. If you want to have an imbalance of points, it's built into the scenario.
Ghaz wrote: They're still 'free models'. I don't see a reason why 'free models' should be treated differently due to the name of the rule.
because GW thinks summoning is the problem and not free models in general
the same as a multi faction death star is evil but a single faction death star is not
the same people don't like too much randomness and GW thinks this is what makes the game fun in the first place
Cmon Warhammer 40,000, show a little faith!
Always a great time sharing ideas with you though 
of each other. This makes it so he can pull out a 50-100 point army, place it in his Army Bag and show up to just have some fun win or lose. He might no what he will face when he walks out the door, but he knows the two forces will be in the same neighborhood of power.
