https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/12/new-warhammer-40000-points-power-levels-may12gw-homepage-post-4/

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, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet. It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.

OH YEAH!

Welcome to the 21st century gw. Blizzard has only been doing this since brood war.

So Tactical marines are 13 points.
Grav pistol is 7
Multi-melta is 27.

Odd numbers for sure. (I prefer all my unit's points coming to a multiple of 5)

Pistols being cheaper (and being able to fire while locked in combat) will improve them a lot

Wow - designing in the possibility for adjusting points values without re-issuing the whole book.

This lets the game have so much potential for better balance. THANK YOU GW!

Shame about summoning though. I would have preferred just to pay a higher tax on units that could summon. I guess it's a hard mechanic to balance otherwise though.

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. You will no longer be able to indefinitely replicate Daemon units, and instead, summoning will be used more as an alternative mechanism of deployment, much like deep striking or outflanking is today (both of which exist in their own forms in the new Warhammer 40,000 too).

I wonder if this means you can reserve points instead of units.

 Shadelkan 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, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet. It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.

OH YEAH!

Someone should pick up the phone cause I called it.

 Shadelkan wrote:

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. You will no longer be able to indefinitely replicate Daemon units, and instead, summoning will be used more as an alternative mechanism of deployment, much like deep striking or outflanking is today (both of which exist in their own forms in the new Warhammer 40,000 too).

I wonder if this means you can reserve points instead of units.

That is exactly what it means.

You know. The way they describe the demon thing....
They could get around their lack of shooting...If they can summon them anywhere on the battle field and charge

 Shadelkan wrote:
I wonder if this means you can reserve points instead of units.

Not sure, they speak specifically about Daemons being summoned so I would guess this mechanic applies mainly to them. It mentions that Deep Strike and Outflank will continue to exist in some form so I guess normal armies will continue as they do currently.

As a sidenote, in AoS, the armies that can summon are Daemons, Sylvaneth, Seraphon (who are basically Order-daemons) and Undead (via raising). Seraphon have no obvious equivalent in 40K. Necrons are undead in space and i suppose might get a pool of points to represent reinforcements of choice being teleported in from a remote Tombworld. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Hmm so if MM is 27pts a pop on tacticals...I wonder what the point cost for the other Heavy weapons will be...50pts Lascannons? 40pts fusion blasters? LOL

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. You will no longer be able to indefinitely replicate Daemon units, and instead, summoning will be used more as an alternative mechanism of deployment, much like deep striking or outflanking is today (both of which exist in their own forms in the new Warhammer 40,000 too).

Thank the Emperor.

And with that, demon factories and other summon-spam lists are toast, and there was much rejoicing.

I'd bet on fusion blasters and multimeltas costing somewhere around the same, but lascannons will probably be rather expensive. Important to note, though: meltas have less damage variance than lascannons if you can get close, and AP -4 is a bigger deal than AP1 relative to AP2 was. So they might be closer than we expect.

So looks like hard hitting weapons like meltas and lascannons will be priced high due to the damage they can do?

Seems fair.

Tautastic wrote:
Hmm so if MM is 27pts a pop on tacticals...I wonder what the point cost for the other Heavy weapons will be...50pts Lascannons? 40pts fusion blasters? LOL

The Multimelta is the most expensive choice. I.e, Lascannon will be less than 27 points for Tactical Marines.

I hope all the people complaining about the Battlecannon 'not being worth it's points' have taken a step back today and realised how hysterical they were being. The game is basically being repointed almost from scratch.

The MM probably fires 24" with AP -4 and hits on a 4+ ON THE MOVE for marines. Oh, and does D6 damage to anything it hits, MCs or vehicles. So that's why it is now the most expensive. Curiously, I don't have any MM marines.

so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.

Well, I thought I'd never see the day. what a time to be alive ^^

Genestealer cults will be hit by the new rules for summoning but it will allow them to customize for the enemy which will be nice and it won't be lets spam for summons and use what's left for our other powers it will be more lets use our other powers and have a unit or two ready for summoning. Nice I like it.

Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Timeshadow wrote:
Genestealer cults will be hit by the new rules for summoning but it will allow them to customize for the enemy which will be nice and it won't be lets spam for summons and use what's left for our other powers it will be more lets use our other powers and have a unit or two ready for summoning. Nice I like it.

In many ways we already could! This actually just opens things up more for having new armies summon stuff. Like maybe, just maybe, Tyranids? (pretty please!)

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Marine + Multimelta is a nice round 40.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

For heavy weapons upgrades, I think 5pt increments are granular enough, 27pts vs 25 or 30 pts probably isnt going to make any meaningful balance difference or options choice changes, but can make army construction run into a lot more weird issues of being 2pts over or having 4 pts left that you cant do anything with, stuff like that.

Not something I feel ultra strong about, just a preference thing.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Marine + Multimelta is a nice round 40.

On an individual basis, sure, but when marines are typically bought in multiples of 5, that gets thrown off.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Sergeant with Grav Pistol - 13+7=20
Trooper with a Multi-Metal - 13+27=40

It's rounded by model, rather than item it appears.

EDIT: Scooped

On the flip side when you buy marine #6 for that gun now you are even on points where before you were not. There is no granular method that makes it so that you can always exactly hit the point level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

For heavy weapons upgrades, I think 5pt increments are granular enough, 27pts vs 25 or 30 pts probably isnt going to make any meaningful balance difference or options choice changes, but can make army construction run into a lot more weird issues of being 2pts over or having 4 pts left that you cant do anything with, stuff like that.

Not something I feel ultra strong about, just a preference thing.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Marine + Multimelta is a nice round 40.

On an individual basis, sure, but when marines are typically bought in multiples of 5, that gets thrown off.

Also rounding does make a significant difference if you think of taking things in multiples. So for a devastator squad if Multi-meltas are 30 points instead of 27. Now we are talking about a difference of 12 points when you look at taking 4 of said weapon. Further if the next cost down is 25 points that means that when taking 4 multi-meltas you end up spending 20 points more than the next option down instead of spending only 8 points more. Also consider things like Flakk missles, that no one took because they were too expensive at 25 points. maybe if odd points had been a thing they could have been made useful.

I kinda liked the challenge of hunting down that odd 2 pts even if I had to switch a unit for something else. I was always happy when I could get the exact 1500pts or whatever.

 Asmodai wrote:

Sergeant with Grav Pistol - 13+7=20
Trooper with a Multi-Metal - 13+27=40

It's rounded by model, rather than item it appears.

EDIT: Scooped

I doubt that a Marine Sergeant will be 13.
I expect they'll have removed the (rather silly) difference between a Sergeant and a Veteran Sergeant (That literally only marines have)
Though they also probably aren't going to be 10pts over a standard trooper like squad leader upgrades have been since forever

Well, technically, Sisters had that difference as well. You have to pay to go from Sister Superior to Veteran Sister Superior, but it is still dumb.

The power level seems like a good way to get a game together quickly, and will probably be used for apoc-size games where an extra tactical squad or two makes little difference and for teaching new players the ropes.

Aside from that we didn't actually learn a lot, their than "points exist" and how summoning will work. What's interesting is that tacmarines got cheaper, but the expected point size for a point-based game went up. Will we need to buy more models? Probably.

I do like that they're balancing around whole numbers. 20 point marine /w pistol, 30 point marine /w MM, etc.

There's no reason point totals can't end in 0 or 5.

It's hard to say if the MM is costed appropriately without knowing the cost of its targets.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
The power level seems like a good way to get a game together quickly, and will probably be used for apoc-size games where an extra tactical squad or two makes little difference and for teaching new players the ropes.

Aside from that we didn't actually learn a lot, their than "points exist" and how summoning will work. What's interesting is that tacmarines got cheaper, but the expected point size for a point-based game went up. Will we need to buy more models? Probably.

Well i dont think so. unless you are taking a LOT of them naked

it seems a lot of points will be tied to the equipment people take.

And Skitarii Alphas. And Chaos Champions, both Marine and Cultist.

I'm a little annoyed they didn't take the opportunity to increase the points costs across the board to increase granularity. There's only so much wiggle room between a 4 point guant, a 5 point guardsman, a SoB and a tactical marine. Doubling a space marine to 26 point would allow you to have 7, 8, 9 or 10 point gaunts. Guardsmen between 8 and 11. Sob between 18 and 22. It gives you more ways to dial in the points cost they REALLY needed, especially with the minor upgrades like grenades and things like toxin-sacs.

Make the default game size 3000-4000 points.

Regarding the multi-melta's ability to roll 2d6 and pick the highest:

The expected value of a 6 sided dice is 3.5.
The expected value of 2 6 sided dice, taking the higher roll, is *roughly* 4.5.

So, you have to ask yourself: Is this worth it?

Everything is situational. But let's assume for a moment that a heavy weapons squad can only have 4 devastator marines in 8th edition. This means the expected result of 4 multi-meltas dealing damage - having already hit and wounded - is either 14 (3.5*4), or roughly 18 (~4.5*4).

So you do get some safety if one doesn't wound.

Let's look at the likelihood that 3D6 completely *kills* a Leman Russ (Sorry Russ, I don't mean to pick on you, you're just the tank we have to look at right now).

Need 12+ damage. (this is assuming we've already landed a hit and got the wound roll, and the vehicle failed its save if it got one)

3D6 Not Melta Range = 3/8; which is also the same as Lascannons.

3D6 Melta Range = 7/9; considerably better.

So you have a 37.5% chance to blow up a vehicle of 12 wounds with 3 melta/lascannon wounds outside of melta range.

Meanwhile, you have a 77.78% chance to blow up a vehicle of 12 wounds with 3 melta shots within melta range.

No more infinite demons is also very welcome. Being able to choose what you need on the fly is a fair compromise, because that can be devastating enough.

Martel732 wrote:
No more infinite demons is also very welcome. Being able to choose what you need on the fly is a fair compromise, because that can be devastating enough.

Yep. Chaining summons was just downright awful.

Chaining wasn't actually legal (can't cast on the turn you're summoned) and Wrath of Magnus removed Horrors getting Daemonology. Plus, coin flip odds for a summon require 5 WC... Mathematically, summon-hammer wasn't exactly a good build so nerfing it is more a way to appease the scrubs rather than attains real balance. Plus now, there's really no reason to run Word Bearers over pretty much any other Legion. (Guess which Legion I run).

...it's like when Gav released the 4e codex all over again. Shame.

 Carnage43 wrote:
I'm a little annoyed they didn't take the opportunity to increase the points costs across the board to increase granularity. There's only so much wiggle room between a 4 point guant, a 5 point guardsman, a SoB and a tactical marine. Doubling a space marine to 26 point would allow you to have 7, 8, 9 or 10 point gaunts. Guardsmen between 8 and 11. Sob between 18 and 22. It gives you more ways to dial in the points cost they REALLY needed, especially with the minor upgrades like grenades and things like toxin-sacs.

Make the default game size 3000-4000 points.

Can't disagree with you on principle. When you consider the psychology of getting thousands of people to embrace a 'new' system, you want to avoid making changes unless you absolutely have to. Right?

I would assume that the models are valuated not relative to one another, but based on a numeric system that takes their upgrades & statlines into consideration.

For instance, if GW is going to ever have a balanced game, the cost of a marine shouldn't be X points so you can have granularity in other factions, it should be X points because when you sum the value of its components it sums to X, or slightly greater than X.

Like building a character in D&D.

Assume the base statline for a 0 point model is 6+hit, 1strength, 1toughness, 1attack, 1wound, 6leadership, etc. Some stats are more expensive than others. Maybe paying 1 point gets you 2 strength. Maybe paying 10 points gets you 1 wound. We don't know what their formula is. Then you have to factor in the value of other abilities, which are probably valued within the faction. ATSKNF might have a cost of 1. Who knows. Maybe you can buy down other stats, like leadership, or movement speed, to get more points to spend in other areas.

And the formula would have to vary based on the type of unit. Vehicles would be fundamentally different than infantry.

 Shadelkan 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, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet. It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.

OH YEAH!

Sounds plausible.
Ingenuine policy. It's all for the money making.

 Marmatag wrote:
Regarding the multi-melta's ability to roll 2d6 and pick the highest:

The expected value of a 6 sided dice is 3.5.
The expected value of 2 6 sided dice, taking the higher roll, is *roughly* 4.5.

So, you have to ask yourself: Is this worth it?

Everything is situational. But let's assume for a moment that a heavy weapons squad can only have 4 devastator marines in 8th edition. This means the expected result of 4 multi-meltas dealing damage - having already hit and wounded - is either 14 (3.5*4), or roughly 18 (~4.5*4).

So you do get some safety if one doesn't wound.

Let's look at the likelihood that 3D6 completely *kills* a Leman Russ (Sorry Russ, I don't mean to pick on you, you're just the tank we have to look at right now).

Need 12+ damage. (this is assuming we've already landed a hit and got the wound roll, and the vehicle failed its save if it got one)

3D6 Not Melta Range = 3/8; which is also the same as Lascannons.

3D6 Melta Range = 7/9; considerably better.

So you have a 37.5% chance to blow up a vehicle of 12 wounds with 3 melta/lascannon wounds outside of melta range.

Meanwhile, you have a 77.78% chance to blow up a vehicle of 12 wounds with 3 melta shots within melta range.

I think you are a bit off on your assessment of the 2D6 take the highest. You have only a 25% chance of doing (9/36) 3 or fewer wounds. A 44% chance of doing 4 or fewer wounds (12/36) and a 55% chance of doing 5 or more wounds. So while the "averages" of 3.5 and 4.5 aren't much different the consistency is quite a bit different. On a single die you have the same chance of rolling any number of wounds, whereas that is not true for 2D6 which bell curve around a value of 7. So your chances of say rolling a 5 or higher (meaning at least 3 wounds) on a multi-melta at half range is 83%, where as you only have a 66% chance of at least a 3 on 1 D6. Similarly there is a 30% chance of doing 6 wounds with a multimelta, and only half that with the lascannon.

Tautastic wrote:
Hmm so if MM is 27pts a pop on tacticals...I wonder what the point cost for the other Heavy weapons will be...50pts Lascannons? 40pts fusion blasters? LOL

really hope heavy weapons will have high cost so maybe we will not see spam of them.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

This is absolutely correct. It allows to, at least theoretically, to insert new weapons with fair points if they fall somewhere in between two old ones power wise.
Furthermore, such nuance could help in case of same weapons handled by different, and differently able, users.

 Marmatag wrote:
I would assume that the models are valuated not relative to one another, but based on a numeric system that takes their upgrades & statlines into consideration.

For instance, if GW is going to ever have a balanced game, the cost of a marine shouldn't be X points so you can have granularity in other factions, it should be X points because when you sum the value of its components it sums to X, or slightly greater than X.

Like building a character in D&D.

Assume the base statline for a 0 point model is 6+hit, 1strength, 1toughness, 1attack, 1wound, 6leadership, etc. Some stats are more expensive than others. Maybe paying 1 point gets you 2 strength. Maybe paying 10 points gets you 1 wound. We don't know what their formula is. Then you have to factor in the value of other abilities, which are probably valued within the faction. ATSKNF might have a cost of 1. Who knows. Maybe you can buy down other stats, like leadership, or movement speed, to get more points to spend in other areas.

And the formula would have to vary based on the type of unit. Vehicles would be fundamentally different than infantry.

That is precicely wrong system. Any attemp to make formula to determine point cost is doomed to fail

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

This is absolutely correct. It allows to, at least theoretically, to insert new weapons with fair points if they fall somewhere in between two old ones power wise.

I would posit that, in such a case, that level of granularity is probably irrelevant for balance if we're talking about one weapon at 25, another at 27, and a final at 30pts for weapons options. You're probably just making army construction a little more awkward rather than actually balancing choices at that point, at least in that kind of an example.

Just like when flamers were 6pts instead of 5pts. That extra point didnt really mean anything in terms of balance but made army construction a little more awkward.

Is it bad, that I am more interested in playing using the Power system vs the Points system and I am a tournament player normally?

I could see a tournament run as bring a 200 power level army.

Or my current thoughts for a tournament that I might suggest to my FLGS.

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.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Chaining wasn't actually legal (can't cast on the turn you're summoned) and Wrath of Magnus removed Horrors getting Daemonology. Plus, coin flip odds for a summon require 5 WC... Mathematically, summon-hammer wasn't exactly a good build so nerfing it is more a way to appease the scrubs rather than attains real balance. Plus now, there's really no reason to run Word Bearers over pretty much any other Legion. (Guess which Legion I run).

...it's like when Gav released the 4e codex all over again. Shame.

Lists that used summoning have been incredibly powerful pretty much since 7th edition dropped until now. WoM removed horrors summoning but it added freakin' magnus, who carried whole GTs on his own due in no small part to the fact that depending on the matchup he could poop nigh-unkillable units of pink horrors onto the board.

Breng77 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Regarding the multi-melta's ability to roll 2d6 and pick the highest:

The expected value of a 6 sided dice is 3.5.
The expected value of 2 6 sided dice, taking the higher roll, is *roughly* 4.5.

So, you have to ask yourself: Is this worth it?

Everything is situational. But let's assume for a moment that a heavy weapons squad can only have 4 devastator marines in 8th edition. This means the expected result of 4 multi-meltas dealing damage - having already hit and wounded - is either 14 (3.5*4), or roughly 18 (~4.5*4).

So you do get some safety if one doesn't wound.

Let's look at the likelihood that 3D6 completely *kills* a Leman Russ (Sorry Russ, I don't mean to pick on you, you're just the tank we have to look at right now).

Need 12+ damage. (this is assuming we've already landed a hit and got the wound roll, and the vehicle failed its save if it got one)

3D6 Not Melta Range = 3/8; which is also the same as Lascannons.

3D6 Melta Range = 7/9; considerably better.

So you have a 37.5% chance to blow up a vehicle of 12 wounds with 3 melta/lascannon wounds outside of melta range.

Meanwhile, you have a 77.78% chance to blow up a vehicle of 12 wounds with 3 melta shots within melta range.

I think you are a bit off on your assessment of the 2D6 take the highest. You have only a 25% chance of doing (9/36) 3 or fewer wounds. A 44% chance of doing 4 or fewer wounds (12/36) and a 55% chance of doing 5 or more wounds. So while the "averages" of 3.5 and 4.5 aren't much different the consistency is quite a bit different. On a single die you have the same chance of rolling any number of wounds, whereas that is not true for 2D6 which bell curve around a value of 7. So your chances of say rolling a 5 or higher (meaning at least 3 wounds) on a multi-melta at half range is 83%, where as you only have a 66% chance of at least a 3 on 1 D6. Similarly there is a 30% chance of doing 6 wounds with a multimelta, and only half that with the lascannon.

Hey,

the closed form for a specific chance is (2(x-1)+1)/36. It breaks like this:

1 wound = 1/36; (2*(0)+1)/36
2 wounds = 3/36; (2*(1)+1)/36
3 wounds = 5/36; (2*(2)+1)/36
4 wounds = 7/36; (2*(3)+1)/36
5 wounds = 9/36; (2*(4)+1)/36
6 wounds = 11/36; (2*(5) +1)/36

You can verify this by drawing a table, and just counting the number of ways to get a specific number.

From there, we just treat this as a weighted dice, and apply a generating function F = (1/36)x + (3/36)x^2 + (5/36)x^3 + (7/36)x^4 + (9/36)x^5 + (11/36)x^6

F^3 gives us the coefficients we're looking for.

The expected value of this roll can be easily computed by just looking at their possibilities and summing:

((1*1) + (3*2) + (5*3) + (7*4) + (9*5) + (11*6))/36 = 161/36 = ~4.472

Remember, we broke this down in melta range vs non-melta range. Outside of melta range, a lascannon and a MM deal the same amount of damage.

But you are right - rounding 4.472 to 4.5 does cause a bit of a leap when you start multiplying by 3 and 4. But i did not do this with my calculations to determine the chance to blow up a Russ - I only represented it as 4.5 to make the number easy to digest when reading on the forums.

Youn wrote:
Is it bad, that I am more interested in playing using the Power system vs the Points system and I am a tournament player normally?

I could see a tournament run as bring a 200 power level army.

Or my current thoughts for a tournament that I might suggest to my FLGS.

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.

More interested in these asymmetric missions for pickup games.

Anyone else notice that we might have to look at two ratings for your army. Sure, there's the point cost that we've been dealing with since forever, but Power Level of the army will determine if you're the Defender or Attacker in certain missions.

Yeah, some of those missions may be not one that you officially use points in, but let's face it, here in America, we're going to end up using both pretty regularly.

One other thing, that bit about the reason for not putting the point costs on the datasheet was a total and complete and total cop out. The Power Level of the unit will be just as malleable as the Point Cost will be. If it is going to be part of a digital print, changing them should not be any more difficult.

Do remember that the melta is assault whereas the lascannon is heavy, that might be important for the points as well. not just pure damage output.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Power level is meant for generalisation and narrative play, if you want balance you're going to need the matched play system.
I like youn's sidebar idea, prevents hard counters.

Multi-melta isn't a meltagun. One is a heavy and the other is an assault weapon.

I love this FB comment + response:

"Power levels make me think DBZ"

"Yeah that joke's been mentioned 9000 times."

Earth127 wrote:
Power level is meant for generalisation and narrative play, if you want balance you're going to need the matched play system.

Yeah, I did mention that this was in America I was talking about. We always make things competitive. A group of guys can't eat hot dogs without some competition being made out of it somewhere. Warhammer was never once intended to be a competitive game, but here in 'Murica, it's seeruz biznezz.

I have no problem playing a WAAC-game.

But I do like to know beforhand what kind of game I'm playing tends to make things more fun for everyone. There are luckily very few WAAC players out there who enjoy sicking their python lists on a bunny rabbit tough.

Having played Daemons since 5th ed, it will be easy to adjust to not getting free units. I'm only sad that it is just a deployment gimmick now. It has been my experience that having more models on the board is usually better.
It could be nice to pick different units depending on the need though, so that will be fun.

Hopefully Daemon horde-style is still viable. And that they make Pink/Blue/Brimstone horrors worth taking. I bought 2 boxes had have yet to use the Split rule at all.
If you have to pay for the models that split, that rule would be pointless as it would be better just to deploy them all from the beginning.

-

 Charistoph wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
Power level is meant for generalisation and narrative play, if you want balance you're going to need the matched play system.

Yeah, I did mention that this was in America I was talking about. We always make things competitive. A group of guys can't eat hot dogs without some competition being made out of it somewhere. Warhammer was never once intended to be a competitive game, but here in 'Murica, it's seeruz biznezz.

well, I'd argue that it's played as a tactical wargame rather than as a narrative sandbox. And, to be fair, it's because that's how GW organized it for nearly two decades. If you attended a GW run event in 1999 or 2005 or 2009, what they had on offer was...competitive tournament play, and little else besides painting and whatnot. Or, if they had something else, it was a small one off for the event that was stuff like "buy and build one of the new chaos spawn kits, have them all fight at the end of the day and the winner gets a $90 credit".

Earth127 wrote:
I have no problem playing a WAAC-game.

But I do like to know beforhand what kind of game I'm playing tends to make things more fun for everyone. There are luckily very few WAAC players out there who enjoy sicking their python lists on a bunny rabbit tough.

In my area, the WAAC players have literally driven several players (including myself) into other games and doing our own narrative things. They cam and dominated a "casual" tournament that was being hosted by our FLGS with several army building restrictions designed to limit what shenanigans could be had. They showed up and dominated everyone there with the worst lists possible (even had one guy on the verge of tears during and after the last round). Even knowing what the tournament was for (just show up and play 40K all day was the goal), the WAAC players made it something unintended by the host. I mean, the prizes were some old OOP 40K models that the host was trying to get rid of, and the WAAC players returned them to the host since it wasn't store credit.

My point is that even with communication beforehand, certain players will disregard everything and still be WAAC. Sometimes you just have to refuse to play with some players to make a point with them.

Based on the idea that GW will continually update the points costs for units and upgrades over time means that they now recognize the problem that the game has been suffering from for years now, the unbalanced armies, and are trying to keep it curbed. To me, the new points systems in place are excellent, and with 40K copying my favorite part of Age of Sigmar (having Open, Narrative, and Matched Play games), this is looking to be my favorite edition of 40K ever.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
Power level is meant for generalisation and narrative play, if you want balance you're going to need the matched play system.

Yeah, I did mention that this was in America I was talking about. We always make things competitive. A group of guys can't eat hot dogs without some competition being made out of it somewhere. Warhammer was never once intended to be a competitive game, but here in 'Murica, it's seeruz biznezz.

well, I'd argue that it's played as a tactical wargame rather than as a narrative sandbox. And, to be fair, it's because that's how GW organized it for nearly two decades. If you attended a GW run event in 1999 or 2005 or 2009, what they had on offer was...competitive tournament play, and little else besides painting and whatnot. Or, if they had something else, it was a small one off for the event that was stuff like "buy and build one of the new chaos spawn kits, have them all fight at the end of the day and the winner gets a $90 credit".

Well, yeah, WE play that way, but it was originally designed as a beer & pretzel game. And of course, we 'Muricans like to go all soccer hooligan with any game over beer & pretzels. Football, baseball, basketball, heck, we even do it with hockey. Need I say more?

Like the others said, prefer the numbers being multiple of 5 (and why I found it a nightmapere trying to give my CC a boltgun)
Not a massive deal, but'll be annoying when my OCD makes me redo the list a thousand and one times to make it 1850 on the dot.

Well, it's common over here to have tournaments that involve a reward.

My FLGS does a tournament a month. With $15.00 entry fee. First place gets half the money, second place gets 35% of the money and third place gets 15% of the money in store credit.

So, imagine entering with 10 players. 150.00 = 75.00 - 52.50 - 22.50. So, taking first really can add something like a Stormraven to your army.

So, people get pretty competitive at those returns.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Just like when flamers were 6pts instead of 5pts. That extra point didnt really mean anything in terms of balance but made army construction a little more awkward.

People already pointed out, it adds up after a while. You could be short of a needed, say, plasma gun after a while.

Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

Youn wrote:
Well, it's common over here to have tournaments that involve a reward.

My FLGS does a tournament a month. With $15.00 entry fee. First place gets half the money, second place gets 35% of the money and third place gets 15% of the money in store credit.

So, imagine entering with 10 players. 150.00 = 75.00 - 52.50 - 22.50. So, taking first really can add something like a Stormraven to your army.

So, people get pretty competitive at those returns.

Which is why I would prefer to have a different prize system, like a box of models to an unrelated game or a board game. Just rewarding the winners makes their armies stronger and better, furthering increasing their chances of victory.

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Tau have had for a while units with odd points costs, including upgrades for only like 3 or 4 points each, and Crisis Suits costing like 21 points each or something (I don't recall exactly). Plus, it makes things much more precise in trying to balance things out better.

steerpike92 wrote:
Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

Split fire across all models in units would cut down on MSU spam, especially since you don't have to "waste" a unit's shooting at a target they shouldn't. I mean, the only Heavy Weapons I considered taking on my Tactical Squads was Heavy Bolters and Missile Launchers, and if I had 10 guys for the Special Weapon I would make use of Combat Squads.

MarboLives wrote:
Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

If it is creating "new" units in the battle, chances are that it will costs points out of the Summoning points in the army, unless it has a special rule specifying otherwise.

MarboLives wrote:
Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

I'd imagine one of the following situations for Tervigons

Can spawn/summon any reserved points as termagants

Can replenish models in termagant units that have lost models

Can no longer spawn termagants in battle, but buffs nearby units of them considerably

Jbz` wrote:


I doubt that a Marine Sergeant will be 13.
I expect they'll have removed the (rather silly) difference between a Sergeant and a Veteran Sergeant (That literally only marines have)
Though they also probably aren't going to be 10pts over a standard trooper like squad leader upgrades have been since forever

We have that distinction to. 10 points for +1 leadership, but the regular Sister Superior can get all the special weapons too.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

And battleshock will increase it again. I don't expect much to change.

It is my sincere hope that the "Power Level" becomes the default for casual games as a rough estimate of a game (thereby eliminating the problem that AOS had before Matched Play) while Matched Play stays for competitive tournaments and the like. I really hope we don't see matched play points become the only real way because "it's not fair" that people aren't paying for individual weapon upgrades.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Jbz` wrote:


I doubt that a Marine Sergeant will be 13.
I expect they'll have removed the (rather silly) difference between a Sergeant and a Veteran Sergeant (That literally only marines have)
Though they also probably aren't going to be 10pts over a standard trooper like squad leader upgrades have been since forever

We have that distinction to. 10 points for +1 leadership, but the regular Sister Superior can get all the special weapons too.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

And battleshock will increase it again. I don't expect much to change.

Having played Age of Sigmar for close to a year now, I can tell you the Battleshock doesn't encourage MSU as much people think it does.

Is battleshock in AoS dependent on the number of models removed or wounds?

Models.

Jbz` wrote:

MarboLives wrote:
Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

I'd imagine one of the following situations for Tervigons

Can spawn/summon any reserved points as termagants

Can replenish models in termagant units that have lost models

Can no longer spawn termagants in battle, but buffs nearby units of them considerably

You hit all of my ideas as well. It will be interesting to see what direction they take a lot of the tyranid beasts, as there's a lot of role overlap ATM and they were super hamstrung by keeping everything at T6. Now with the new to-wound chart we might see the carnifex become the T9 W10 2+ save battering ram it used to be, and the tervigon get REALLY fast, and tervigons being a force multiplier to gaunts and gants. Excited to see!

the_scotsman wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Chaining wasn't actually legal (can't cast on the turn you're summoned) and Wrath of Magnus removed Horrors getting Daemonology. Plus, coin flip odds for a summon require 5 WC... Mathematically, summon-hammer wasn't exactly a good build so nerfing it is more a way to appease the scrubs rather than attains real balance. Plus now, there's really no reason to run Word Bearers over pretty much any other Legion. (Guess which Legion I run).

...it's like when Gav released the 4e codex all over again. Shame.

Lists that used summoning have been incredibly powerful pretty much since 7th edition dropped until now. WoM removed horrors summoning but it added freakin' magnus, who carried whole GTs on his own due in no small part to the fact that depending on the matchup he could poop nigh-unkillable units of pink horrors onto the board.

Generally prior to WoM, the issue was less summoning (whoop-de-do, you bring bunched-up units that do nothing for a turn) so much the ability to stack buffs in a way to make incredibly resilient objective-campers. Nanivati's Adepticon lists cared less about summons so much as "two giant screamerstars, Fateweaver, and a Plaguedrone star with Biomancy Fecundity Heralds." Layered defenses, plus the ability to destroy/attrition Knights and other targets down.

The Chaos list that did best this previous LVO wasn't a summon list, but an Ordnance Tyrant list with Screamer screen. The other lists used Daemons as a battery for Magnus, with actual Thousand Sons appropriately collecting dust on the shelves.

Nothing here actually implies summon-spam was actually the component that needed fixing. It's more a scrub-hammer knee-jerk reaction to something that "should not be", despite it also nerfing those armies that could use it to fill in other serious army gaps.

Fix the actual 1k Sons army for proper internal balance (Example: make Siphon Magic a Grand Cabal command benefit rather than a random Psyker power, and prevent it from being recursive), rather than destroying other armies with a sweeping core rule change first.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Jbz` wrote:


I doubt that a Marine Sergeant will be 13.
I expect they'll have removed the (rather silly) difference between a Sergeant and a Veteran Sergeant (That literally only marines have)
Though they also probably aren't going to be 10pts over a standard trooper like squad leader upgrades have been since forever

We have that distinction to. 10 points for +1 leadership, but the regular Sister Superior can get all the special weapons too.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

And battleshock will increase it again. I don't expect much to change.

Refresh my memory what is msu again?

Multiple small units.

 Drasius wrote:
Multiple small units.

Ah, thank you. So many good those floating around I get them confused.

Wayniac wrote:
It is my sincere hope that the "Power Level" becomes the default for casual games as a rough estimate of a game (thereby eliminating the problem that AOS had before Matched Play) while Matched Play stays for competitive tournaments and the like. I really hope we don't see matched play points become the only real way because "it's not fair" that people aren't paying for individual weapon upgrades.

People like points for different reasons; myself, I only played causal 40k (I went to tournaments but with WHFB 5th and 6th edition).

I like points when well executed because I like to write lists, evaluate options, have choice, and then comment it with my friends post-game.

This has nothing to do with being over-competitive.

It'll be points or nothing because the other system does not account for upgrades and TFG will try to game the system.

Same reason unbound was doomed to fail before the edition even came out.

 Galef wrote:
Having played Daemons since 5th ed, it will be easy to adjust to not getting free units. I'm only sad that it is just a deployment gimmick now. It has been my experience that having more models on the board is usually better.
It could be nice to pick different units depending on the need though, so that will be fun.

Hopefully Daemon horde-style is still viable. And that they make Pink/Blue/Brimstone horrors worth taking. I bought 2 boxes had have yet to use the Split rule at all.
If you have to pay for the models that split, that rule would be pointless as it would be better just to deploy them all from the beginning.

-

If this works like AoS, reinforcing existing units will be free. So you can have a unit of Blue Horros near a unit of Pink Horrors, and whenever a Pink Horror dies, you can add two to the unit of Blue Horrors for free, if they are less than at the beginning of the game. (This last part I don't remember correctly now, so maybe you can go with more than at the beginning, if its still the same unit)

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Youn wrote:
Well, it's common over here to have tournaments that involve a reward.

My FLGS does a tournament a month. With $15.00 entry fee. First place gets half the money, second place gets 35% of the money and third place gets 15% of the money in store credit.

So, imagine entering with 10 players. 150.00 = 75.00 - 52.50 - 22.50. So, taking first really can add something like a Stormraven to your army.

So, people get pretty competitive at those returns.

Which is why I would prefer to have a different prize system, like a box of models to an unrelated game or a board game. Just rewarding the winners makes their armies stronger and better, furthering increasing their chances of victory.

In this type of game, getting more models for the game you play doesn't distinctly give you an advantage for the next game.

Reason:
1 - The people you play know what new models you got (If they give out actual models instead of money)
2 - They know what you used last time to when and can adjust their armies accordingly
3 - Dice rolls don't come out the same every game, sometime a win in a close game really is a swing of the dice rolls.
4 - Nothing prevents other people from also increasing their armies, this isn't a closed loop like some video games, where the only way to get better is in game rewards, and then because you got better, it makes you chances to win the rewards next time better.

Wayniac wrote:
It is my sincere hope that the "Power Level" becomes the default for casual games as a rough estimate of a game (thereby eliminating the problem that AOS had before Matched Play) while Matched Play stays for competitive tournaments and the like. I really hope we don't see matched play points become the only real way because "it's not fair" that people aren't paying for individual weapon upgrades.

I hope not, because my time is limited and I just want a fair chance of winning. It's not critical to win; it's critical to have a CHANCE to win, and points gives me a warm, grodnardy glow.

Calculating exactly how many points you have isn't very difficult with a program like https://webapplications-webroster.rhcloud.com/rc/web/#!/rosterCreator.

It's a tiny price to pay in order to have a fair game. Especially when weapon upgrades are often a huge chunk of your troop points.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

But biggest advantages are survivabilty and abilty to be in 2 places


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
It'll be points or nothing because the other system does not account for upgrades and TFG will try to game the system.

Same reason unbound was doomed to fail before the edition even came out.

Just casual quick read of this forum proves your statement wrong.

Funnily enough even unbound was used so wrong there again

Msu has many MANY advantages. The only way i have seen to effectively combat those advantages in 40k is cost effeciency.

30k does a great job by making each additional model less expensive than the base unit would be and unit wide upgrades coming in at a flat cost so you get more bang for your buck with each additional model.

You either get more flexible mobility out of your msu with creating screens to protect units from melee and reduce the risk of battleshock or take your advantages from your point expenditure by building up the units you have.

Its a significantly more interesting decision with much more nuance and no clear answers.

But if i can take 1 unit of rubric marines and add 5 guys or get 2 units of rubric marines and gain a second psyker for almost exactly the same cost why the hell would i ever take it as a single unit? (So long as foc slots are available. Have you seen the foc charts? I don't think not having enough slots will be an issue)

MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

 Charistoph wrote:
MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

That's because it had psyker in it. Rubrics themselves are flat cost. But not every unit has powerful expensive mandatory leader. And of course msu rubrics will be tossing mortal wounds reliably

 Lance845 wrote:
30k does a great job by making each additional model less expensive than the base unit would be

AKA, Back to Squad Tax?

 Talamare wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
30k does a great job by making each additional model less expensive than the base unit would be

AKA, Back to Squad Tax?

Well generally more powerfull choices should cost more. Or you think it's odd tac marine costs more than ig trooper?

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

That's because it had psyker in it. Rubrics themselves are flat cost. But not every unit has powerful expensive mandatory leader. And of course msu rubrics will be tossing mortal wounds reliably

It's not ONLY because it had a psyker in it.

Consider unit wide upgrades that have a cost PPM. You could take a base unit that runs in front and screens the upgraded unit from melee or you could take a single unit with double the models, loose the protection of a screening unit, AND costs more than the 2 separate units by the PPM increase.

The Rubric data sheet shows a good example because of the psyker mandatory. But I would argue that almost any unit looses out by not going MSU.

Biovores. I can take 3 in a unit and have them tethered to each other and having them all pulled into a melee if a unit makes a charge on them or I can take 3 separate units of 1 model and have each one need to be charged separately while gaining the advantage of superior positioning because they are not tethered together by unit cohesion. Without seeing a new Biovore datasheet and going off the current Biovore datasheet please tell me why anyone would build up a single unit of biovore?

But if one biovore cost say... 30 points and each additional biovore cost 25... well... Now I have a very good reason to consider building up a single unit instead of buying 3 separate.

tneva82 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
30k does a great job by making each additional model less expensive than the base unit would be

AKA, Back to Squad Tax?

Well generally more powerfull choices should cost more. Or you think it's odd tac marine costs more than ig trooper?

I don't think that's what he's saying.

He's saying that, if you impose a flat cost on bringing the unit in the first place, before you add in the cost of the models in it, then it would be more cost efficient to bring large squads instead of spamming MSU.

 Talamare wrote:


AKA, Back to Squad Tax?

It's not a squad tax. It's a bulk discount.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
30k does a great job by making each additional model less expensive than the base unit would be

AKA, Back to Squad Tax?

Well generally more powerfull choices should cost more. Or you think it's odd tac marine costs more than ig trooper?

I don't think that's what he's saying.

He's saying that, if you impose a flat cost on bringing the unit in the first place, before you add in the cost of the models in it, then it would be more cost efficient to bring large squads instead of spamming MSU.

I am saying if you cost the base unit as you do now and give a slight discount to each additional model costs while giving unit wide upgrades a flat cost instead of a PPM cost THEN you gain cost efficiency.

Example.

Tau Stealth Suits costs 90pts for 3 models and the upgrade Bonding Knife Ritual costs 1 PPM you can add up to 3 Stealth Suits for 30PPM.

Change that to Stealth Suits costs 90 pts for 3 models
Bonding Knife Ritual costs 3pts.
May include up to 3 additional stealth suits for 25 PPM.

Both Bonding Knife Ritual and additional models in the single unit is now much more efficient cost wise. The base units costs has not changed. But building it up is more efficient than bringing 2 units of 3 by 18 points.

MSU keeps all it's advantages but cost efficiency directly counters it.

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

That's because it had psyker in it. Rubrics themselves are flat cost. But not every unit has powerful expensive mandatory leader. And of course msu rubrics will be tossing mortal wounds reliably

Most non-Vehicle units have a Character in them, though. They may not be Psykers, but they are still there.

 Lance845 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

That's because it had psyker in it. Rubrics themselves are flat cost. But not every unit has powerful expensive mandatory leader. And of course msu rubrics will be tossing mortal wounds reliably

It's not ONLY because it had a psyker in it.

Consider unit wide upgrades that have a cost PPM. You could take a base unit that runs in front and screens the upgraded unit from melee or you could take a single unit with double the models, loose the protection of a screening unit, AND costs more than the 2 separate units by the PPM increase.

The Rubric data sheet shows a good example because of the psyker mandatory. But I would argue that almost any unit looses out by not going MSU.

Biovores. I can take 3 in a unit and have them tethered to each other and having them all pulled into a melee if a unit makes a charge on them or I can take 3 separate units of 1 model and have each one need to be charged separately while gaining the advantage of superior positioning because they are not tethered together by unit cohesion. Without seeing a new Biovore datasheet and going off the current Biovore datasheet please tell me why anyone would build up a single unit of biovore?

But if one biovore cost say... 30 points and each additional biovore cost 25... well... Now I have a very good reason to consider building up a single unit instead of buying 3 separate.

Umm how that shows more expensivie base cost isn't due to psyker? Okay it's possible msu tax is there but then it's pretty small.

We have no evidence 5 tac marines with sergeant that is no match for aspiring sorcerer has same cost system.

Msu tax should be but evidence so far doesn't prove it and hints at opposite


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

That's because it had psyker in it. Rubrics themselves are flat cost. But not every unit has powerful expensive mandatory leader. And of course msu rubrics will be tossing mortal wounds reliably

Most non-Vehicle units have a Character in them, though. They may not be Psykers, but they are still there.

But not this good and so far they have been free for most units in 7 ed. We have no evidence those minor sergeants wont still be free. And if you btw charge for good character and thats why basic unit costs more thats not even msu benefit compensation. For that 5 bog standard tac marines should for example cost 75(15 per model) and add members 13. You do NOT get it by adding psyker causing mortal wounds and charge him.

MSU cost should come in the CAD, you fill it out faster therefore needing more detachments. Too bad that rarely works out.

Also from reading my red book the cost discount on bigger squads doesn't seem to be as large as some people make it out to be.

Earth127 wrote:
MSU cost should come in the CAD, you fill it out faster therefore needing more detachments. Too bad that rarely works out.

Also from reading my red book the cost discount on bigger squads doesn't seem to be as large as some people make it out to be.

It doesn't need to be large. If because you build up 6 units you end up with enough points to purchase another small unit or even some nice upgrade wargear then it works out.

Also, have you looked at the 8th ed cads? 1) we don't know if you can bring more than 1. 2) If you can... good. The more cads you bring the more command points you might end up with. Even more MSU advantages. Not saying we know that is how it works or not, but the CAD is nowhere near as restrictive in 8th by the looks of it and IF you can bring more than one it will be to your advantage.

 Lance845 wrote:

Also, have you looked at the 8th ed cads? 1) we don't know if you can bring more than 1. 2) If you can... good. The more cads you bring the more command points you might end up with. Even more MSU advantages. Not saying we know that is how it works or not, but the CAD is nowhere near as restrictive in 8th by the looks of it and IF you can bring more than one it will be to your advantage.

Actually we know that you can take more. If not tournies wouldnt have ability to limit like gw stated and allies wouldn't work as those need another detach and gw has said allies are in

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

That's because it had psyker in it. Rubrics themselves are flat cost. But not every unit has powerful expensive mandatory leader. And of course msu rubrics will be tossing mortal wounds reliably

Most non-Vehicle units have a Character in them, though. They may not be Psykers, but they are still there.

But not this good and so far they have been free for most units in 7 ed. We have no evidence those minor sergeants wont still be free. And if you btw charge for good character and thats why basic unit costs more thats not even msu benefit compensation. For that 5 bog standard tac marines should for example cost 75(15 per model) and add members 13. You do NOT get it by adding psyker causing mortal wounds and charge him.

But those Sergeants usually carry special Weapons, such as Pistols, Combi-Weapons, all those Exarch Weapons, Power Weapons, etc. Going this route, and if we use AoS as a guide, those Characters will also be carrying an extra Attack.

It may only be one Power Level Point in some cases, but that is still one Power Level Point which means that going MSU will give you a lot of those 1 Power Level Points to raise the Power Level of the army as a whole. That usually means a greater likelihood of either being the Attacker, or going with a smaller model count over all.