1. GW is aware just how OP 7th edition chaos daemons are...at least, that's the sense that I got from it.
2. Since Galef has been talking about this, he'll be interested to read, and I quote:
"Have some Reinforcement Points for Blue Horrors and Brimstone Horrors as well, as these still split out of their parent unit like a series of Russian Dolls and are great for grabbing objectives and keeping enemy units busy long after other units would have been destroyed."
So. No. No free models for you.
3. Tzeentch no longer confers a reroll. Instead, he confers a flat +1 to invuln saves. Which leads me to...
4. The Lord of Change either has a 4+ invuln save or a 3+ invuln save.
"Tzeentch grants his minions the ability of Ephemeral Form, giving his Daemons +1 to their invulnerable saves. Wow, that’s good! A Lord of Change with that boost will be quite powerful indeed, with a 4+ invulnerable save and SIXTEEN wounds! "
Is that a 4+ before or after the +1 Tzeentch bonus was conferred?
Traditio wrote: I'm surprised that nobody has posted this yet.
They have, it's been discussed in the N+R thread since seconds after it got posted, it's just that everything gets duplicated down here in discussions and I'm guessing the Mods have given up on policing people not posting stuff in the right place until 8th is released as people create a thread about anything that enters their head right now.
4. The Lord of Change either has a 4+ invuln save or a 3+ invuln save.
"Tzeentch grants his minions the ability of Ephemeral Form, giving his Daemons +1 to their invulnerable saves. Wow, that’s good! A Lord of Change with that boost will be quite powerful indeed, with a 4+ invulnerable save and SIXTEEN wounds! "
Is that a 4+ before or after the +1 Tzeentch bonus was conferred?
"WITH THAT BOOST" suggests they've already answered that: 5++ base, 4++ with the boost.
One thing that struck me from this was that they said 'reinforcement points' are needed for horrors to split. Horrors definitely needed toning down, and sounds like this has been achieved through this mechanic.
But does this mean that now points are kept in reserve instead of units? Sorry if this isn't new news, but it's the first I've heard of it.
-Tzeentch units have a+1invuln. That the LoC having a 4+invuln infers a couple of possibilities: either the daemon special rule no longer exists, or it does but daemons no longer have a default 5++, as if they did then ALL Tzeentch units would have a 4++ by default. Third possibility is that they do have all have a default 4++, and Frankie's intention was to highlight the 16 wounds moreso then the 4++. I wonder if Fateweaver now has a 3++ then.
-If Khorne daemons have +1 strength AND +1 attack whether they charge OR get charged, meaning that they will basically always have +1 attack and +1 strength, why make this a special rule, instead of just adding +1 strength and attack to their statline? My gut feeling is that in reality nothing's changed, and Khorne units get +1 strength and attack if they charge, but only get +1 attack of they get charged.
-If Slaanesh units only get nu-rending when on large squads then this is ultimately a net nerf to them compared to their old rules. At i5 they were already hitting before 90% of units in the game, so *almost* always hitting first isn't much of a change. Meanwhile requiring large squad sizes to get Graceful Killers makes MSU daemonettes and Seeker squads seem pretty useless.
-Nurglings have infiltrate and FnP. Nothing particularly new here.
Since I run mono Nurgle it's nice to see my Nurglings getting their FNP back. Hopefully this applies to all Nurgle daemons, because it was a bit of a blow to lose it with the current dex, and take a point of toughness loss at the same time for a lot of units. Granted the points cost dropped too, mostly, but Nurgle is supposed to be the Bullet sponge
-If Slaanesh units only get nu-rending when on large squads then this is ultimately a net nerf to them compared to their old rules. At i5 they were already hitting before 90% of units in the game, so *almost* always hitting first isn't much of a change. Meanwhile requiring large squad sizes to get Graceful Killers makes MSU daemonettes and Seeker squads seem pretty useless.
.
The "nu-rending" is on the Daemonettes' claws.
They get an extra attack if they have 20+ in the unit.
I am not convinced that's so great for them, because Daemonettes are made of wet tissue paper and thus won't stay over 20 strong very long...
I would not be supersized if daemons got some serious nerfs. Since the article started with the competitive scene daemon abuse and made it sound as a rule not the exception of current daemon lists.
oldzoggy wrote: I would not be supersized if daemons got some serious nerfs. Since the article started with the competitive scene daemon abuse and made it sound as a rule not the exception of current daemon lists.
Actually they need some serious buffs. Sure, there's a couple of builds that have been strong, but there's whole swathes of the current Codex that you'd never take outside of fluff reasons.
-If Khorne daemons have +1 strength AND +1 attack whether they charge OR get charged, meaning that they will basically always have +1 attack and +1 strength, why make this a special rule, instead of just adding +1 strength and attack to their statline? My gut feeling is that in reality nothing's changed, and Khorne units get +1 strength and attack if they charge, but only get +1 attack of they get charged.
I assume that the bonus only applies to the first round of combat.
-Nurglings have infiltrate and FnP. Nothing particularly new here.
This is interesting:
The article seemed to suggest (though did not outright state) that nurglings will be able to infiltrate and charge in the same turn, no?
oldzoggy wrote: I would not be supersized if daemons got some serious nerfs. Since the article started with the competitive scene daemon abuse and made it sound as a rule not the exception of current daemon lists.
Actually they need some serious buffs. Sure, there's a couple of builds that have been strong, but there's whole swathes of the current Codex that you'd never take outside of fluff reasons.
Thats basically the situation of every "OP" faction. Eldar, Tau and Marines only have OP some specific build, normally based in 1-2 OP units or detachments. In general, the balance of 40K was as bad between codexs as just in every codex internally. Every factions need buffs and nerfs, but in different things/aspects/units, to be better balanced internally and externally.
-If Khorne daemons have +1 strength AND +1 attack whether they charge OR get charged, meaning that they will basically always have +1 attack and +1 strength, why make this a special rule, instead of just adding +1 strength and attack to their statline? My gut feeling is that in reality nothing's changed, and Khorne units get +1 strength and attack if they charge, but only get +1 attack of they get charged.
I assume that the bonus only applies to the first round of combat.
Alright lads, you've made your point: it is too early in the morning for me to be thinking critically about this information I'm gonna go sit down now lol
-If Khorne daemons have +1 strength AND +1 attack whether they charge OR get charged, meaning that they will basically always have +1 attack and +1 strength, why make this a special rule, instead of just adding +1 strength and attack to their statline? My gut feeling is that in reality nothing's changed, and Khorne units get +1 strength and attack if they charge, but only get +1 attack of they get charged.
A)Combats can have more than one round
B) An enemy unit could pile-in on the bloodletters by having charged a unit within 3''.
oldzoggy wrote: I would not be supersized if daemons got some serious nerfs. Since the article started with the competitive scene daemon abuse and made it sound as a rule not the exception of current daemon lists.
Actually they need some serious buffs. Sure, there's a couple of builds that have been strong, but there's whole swathes of the current Codex that you'd never take outside of fluff reasons.
Thats basically the situation of every "OP" faction. Eldar, Tau and Marines only have OP some specific build, normally based in 1-2 OP units or detachments. In general, the balance of 40K was as bad between codexs as just in every codex internally. Every factions need buffs and nerfs, but in different things/aspects/units, to be better balanced internally and externally.
You're right, of course, balance is awful currently whichever way you look at it, internal or external, but I'd argue Daemons are more tied to certain builds than others, purely because all the random means you've got to build to mitigate it, whereas you don't have to take an extra unit of Grav Cents in a Marine army to make sure one of them turns up with the correct armament!
oldzoggy wrote: I would not be supersized if daemons got some serious nerfs. Since the article started with the competitive scene daemon abuse and made it sound as a rule not the exception of current daemon lists.
Actually they need some serious buffs. Sure, there's a couple of builds that have been strong, but there's whole swathes of the current Codex that you'd never take outside of fluff reasons.
Thats basically the situation of every "OP" faction. Eldar, Tau and Marines only have OP some specific build, normally based in 1-2 OP units or detachments. In general, the balance of 40K was as bad between codexs as just in every codex internally. Every factions need buffs and nerfs, but in different things/aspects/units, to be better balanced internally and externally.
You're right, of course, balance is awful currently whichever way you look at it, internal or external, but I'd argue Daemons are more tied to certain builds than others, purely because all the random means you've got to build to mitigate it, whereas you don't have to take an extra unit of Grav Cents in a Marine army to make sure one of them turns up with the correct armament!
Daemons are the most unpleasant army in the game to play against. 2++ rerollable invul saves on any unit they feel needed it. Blech, rather play taudar.
oldzoggy wrote: I would not be supersized if daemons got some serious nerfs. Since the article started with the competitive scene daemon abuse and made it sound as a rule not the exception of current daemon lists.
Actually they need some serious buffs. Sure, there's a couple of builds that have been strong, but there's whole swathes of the current Codex that you'd never take outside of fluff reasons.
Thats basically the situation of every "OP" faction. Eldar, Tau and Marines only have OP some specific build, normally based in 1-2 OP units or detachments. In general, the balance of 40K was as bad between codexs as just in every codex internally. Every factions need buffs and nerfs, but in different things/aspects/units, to be better balanced internally and externally.
You're right, of course, balance is awful currently whichever way you look at it, internal or external, but I'd argue Daemons are more tied to certain builds than others, purely because all the random means you've got to build to mitigate it, whereas you don't have to take an extra unit of Grav Cents in a Marine army to make sure one of them turns up with the correct armament!
Daemons are the most unpleasant army in the game to play against. 2++ rerollable invul saves on any unit they feel needed it. Blech, rather play taudar.
How are they getting "a 2++ re-rollable invuln on any unit that needed it"? Someone lied to you, son. The ONLY units in the codex that can even reliably get a 2++ are Tzeentch units, let alone a re-rollable. That excludes over 75% of the units in the codex.
Just about yeah, which highlights just how bad the internal balance was. In fact I think only Tyranids and space Marines may have worse internal balance.
2. Since Galef has been talking about this, he'll be interested to read, and I quote:
"Have some Reinforcement Points for Blue Horrors and Brimstone Horrors as well, as these still split out of their parent unit like a series of Russian Dolls and are great for grabbing objectives and keeping enemy units busy long after other units would have been destroyed."
So. No. No free models for you.
While this is great from a balance standpoint, it literally means the Split rule will be worthless. If you are paying points for them already, why wouldn't you just deploy them as normal?
I'm personally disappointed because I bought 2 boxes of Blue/Brims and never got to play will the Split rule at all because once I new 8th was coming, I stopped playing 7th. At least 2 boxes was all I bought.
The Tzeentch bonus sounds much better than re-roll '1s'. It means that if Daemons still get other bonuses to invuls, a 2++ re-rollable will not be possible. Just a flat 2++, if even that. Daemonettes sound amazing this edition if they have enough attacks (charging +1 attack likely being gone after all). The still pretty much have Rending, i.e. '6' to-wound is basically no armour for you, but what really intrigues me is that this means that they basically always ignore vehicle armour saves (as they need 6s to wound T6 or higher)
Galef wrote:While this is great from a balance standpoint
Of course it is. "Free" anything, especially free models/upgrades, by definition is imbalancing. It's a stupid rule and they should have never implemented it in the first place.
it literally means the Split rule will be worthless. If you are paying points for them already, why wouldn't you just deploy them as normal?
A lot of this will depend on the rule set that we finally end up with.
I suspect that one use will be reliable objective camping.
If you have an objective, say, behind a wall, it's a lot easier to hide a smaller number of models with the option to split later.
If nothing else, the split rule will give you options.
What happens if a unit of daemonettes charges a unit of daemonettes?
Does anybody else see the logical paradox that this would entail?
Simple, the rule will probably say something along the lines of "this does not apply if charged by a unit that has a special rule that does the same"
Well the striking first in combat rule could just be "always strike first" unless the enemy unit has the same rule, like it was in fantasy. But since they said all most always get the charge I'd be bet that it's a dice roll to steal the charge, maybe on a 2+. If both units have rule the attack simultaneously, or roll off for it.
-If Slaanesh units only get nu-rending when on large squads then this is ultimately a net nerf to them compared to their old rules. At i5 they were already hitting before 90% of units in the game, so *almost* always hitting first isn't much of a change. Meanwhile requiring large squad sizes to get Graceful Killers makes MSU daemonettes and Seeker squads seem pretty useless.
Graceful Killers:
Is nearly a straight port over from AOS, but now effects units of 20+ rather than effecting units of 10+ of 6+ wound roll; and units of 20+ on a 5+ wound roll. So a bit weaker.
Piercing Claws:
Spoiler:
Slaaneshi daemons got to keep rending attacks at AP-4. I was almost certain that they would be just a flat AP-1, and 2-3 attacks. If we're lucky they might still have base attacks at AP-1.
Not as good as 7th Edition rending since Terminator still get a 6+ save and unit can potentially improve their saves with blessing and the like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, for Slaanesh I don't care if we don't have a strike first rule. I rather have run and charge and 2D6 run moves ported over form AOS. That and greater movement would virtually guarantee charges anyway.
Well the striking first in combat rule could just be "always strike first" unless the enemy unit has the same rule, like it was in fantasy. But since they said all most always get the charge I'd be bet that it's a dice roll to steal the charge, maybe on a 2+. If both units have rule the attack simultaneously, or roll off for it.
Eww no...
Please 1 die roll off to determine these things.
I rather just have it either cancel each other out, so that the charger strikes first...
or they strike simultaneously, similar to how same initiative works currently.
I'd vastly prefer charger striking first overriding ASF. It's a known quantity and known factors are always superior to random factors in strategy games.
oldzoggy wrote: I would not be supersized if daemons got some serious nerfs. Since the article started with the competitive scene daemon abuse and made it sound as a rule not the exception of current daemon lists.
Actually they need some serious buffs. Sure, there's a couple of builds that have been strong, but there's whole swathes of the current Codex that you'd never take outside of fluff reasons.
Thats basically the situation of every "OP" faction. Eldar, Tau and Marines only have OP some specific build, normally based in 1-2 OP units or detachments. In general, the balance of 40K was as bad between codexs as just in every codex internally. Every factions need buffs and nerfs, but in different things/aspects/units, to be better balanced internally and externally.
You're right, of course, balance is awful currently whichever way you look at it, internal or external, but I'd argue Daemons are more tied to certain builds than others, purely because all the random means you've got to build to mitigate it, whereas you don't have to take an extra unit of Grav Cents in a Marine army to make sure one of them turns up with the correct armament!
Daemons are the most unpleasant army in the game to play against. 2++ rerollable invul saves on any unit they feel needed it. Blech, rather play taudar.
How are they getting "a 2++ re-rollable invuln on any unit that needed it"? Someone lied to you, son. The ONLY units in the codex that can even reliably get a 2++ are Tzeentch units, let alone a re-rollable. That excludes over 75% of the units in the codex.
Azreal13 wrote:And almost 100% of what was fielded in competitive lists...
And even then of those Tzeentch units, only about 50% saw play.
When is the last time you saw The Changeling, The Blue Scribes, Brimstone Horrors, Flamers, Flaming Chariots or Exalted Flamers, Tzeentch Furies or Tzeentch Soul Grinders taken as anything other than taxes (if even that).
(Just to make sure it's 100% clear I'm agreeing with you guys)
Galef wrote:While this is great from a balance standpoint
Of course it is. "Free" anything, especially free models/upgrades, by definition is imbalancing. It's a stupid rule and they should have never implemented it in the first place.
it literally means the Split rule will be worthless. If you are paying points for them already, why wouldn't you just deploy them as normal?
A lot of this will depend on the rule set that we finally end up with.
I suspect that one use will be reliable objective camping.
If you have an objective, say, behind a wall, it's a lot easier to hide a smaller number of models with the option to split later.
If nothing else, the split rule will give you options.
It's looking just like AoS so you will never see the split do to if you know the opposition has put points into splitting you can ignore the unit till the end and they are fighting under points
A better way whoud have had them baked into the point cost
Galef wrote:While this is great from a balance standpoint
Of course it is. "Free" anything, especially free models/upgrades, by definition is imbalancing. It's a stupid rule and they should have never implemented it in the first place.
it literally means the Split rule will be worthless. If you are paying points for them already, why wouldn't you just deploy them as normal?
A lot of this will depend on the rule set that we finally end up with.
I suspect that one use will be reliable objective camping.
If you have an objective, say, behind a wall, it's a lot easier to hide a smaller number of models with the option to split later.
If nothing else, the split rule will give you options.
It's looking just like AoS so you will never see the split do to if you know the opposition has put points into splitting you can ignore the unit till the end and they are fighting under points
A better way whoud have had them baked into the point cost
Oldmike wrote:It's looking just like AoS so you will never see the split do to if you know the opposition has put points into splitting you can ignore the unit till the end and they are fighting under points. A better way whoud have had them baked into the point cost
What you are saying doesn't make sense to me.
The points cost should be exactly the same either way.
If unit A costs x points and B costs y points, then you end up paying z.
If the cost of B were already part of A, then, once again, you would STILL end up paying z.
At least the split rule gives you options, since your reinforcement points don't HAVE to be spent (at least, I would assume) on the models that would use the Split rule. They can be used on summoning instead.
Oldmike wrote:It's looking just like AoS so you will never see the split do to if you know the opposition has put points into splitting you can ignore the unit till the end and they are fighting under points. A better way whoud have had them baked into the point cost
What you are saying doesn't make sense to me.
The points cost should be exactly the same either way.
If unit A costs x points and B costs y points, then you end up paying z.
If the cost of B were already part of A, then, once again, you would STILL end up paying z.
At least the split rule gives you options, since your reinforcement points don't HAVE to be spent (at least, I would assume) on the models that would use the Split rule. They can be used on summoning instead.
Not if you got the split guys for a discount price i.e. If pinks are 100 blues are 80 and brims are 40 but you can get a set for 200
As it is summoning is bad as you basically have units in reserves that may never even come in as your casters can be targeted and sniped
Oldmike wrote:It's looking just like AoS so you will never see the split do to if you know the opposition has put points into splitting you can ignore the unit till the end and they are fighting under points. A better way whoud have had them baked into the point cost
What you are saying doesn't make sense to me.
The points cost should be exactly the same either way.
If unit A costs x points and B costs y points, then you end up paying z.
If the cost of B were already part of A, then, once again, you would STILL end up paying z.
At least the split rule gives you options, since your reinforcement points don't HAVE to be spent (at least, I would assume) on the models that would use the Split rule. They can be used on summoning instead.
Not if you got the split guys for a discount price i.e. If pinks are 100 blues are 80 and brims are 40 but you can get a set for 200
As it is summoning is bad as you basically have units in reserves that may never even come in as your casters can be targeted and sniped
Except you are are forgetting that summoning lets you pick your unit at the time of summoning so you get to tailor your list mid game
Oldmike wrote:It's looking just like AoS so you will never see the split do to if you know the opposition has put points into splitting you can ignore the unit till the end and they are fighting under points. A better way whoud have had them baked into the point cost
What you are saying doesn't make sense to me.
The points cost should be exactly the same either way.
If unit A costs x points and B costs y points, then you end up paying z.
If the cost of B were already part of A, then, once again, you would STILL end up paying z.
At least the split rule gives you options, since your reinforcement points don't HAVE to be spent (at least, I would assume) on the models that would use the Split rule. They can be used on summoning instead.
Not if you got the split guys for a discount price i.e. If pinks are 100 blues are 80 and brims are 40 but you can get a set for 200
As it is summoning is bad as you basically have units in reserves that may never even come in as your casters can be targeted and sniped
Except you are are forgetting that summoning lets you pick your unit at the time of summoning so you get to tailor your list mid game
If you play mono god it's not nearly as useful so for me it sucks to get charged to have the power to summon and make it a piss poor tactic
Oldmike wrote:It's looking just like AoS so you will never see the split do to if you know the opposition has put points into splitting you can ignore the unit till the end and they are fighting under points. A better way whoud have had them baked into the point cost
What you are saying doesn't make sense to me.
The points cost should be exactly the same either way.
If unit A costs x points and B costs y points, then you end up paying z.
If the cost of B were already part of A, then, once again, you would STILL end up paying z.
At least the split rule gives you options, since your reinforcement points don't HAVE to be spent (at least, I would assume) on the models that would use the Split rule. They can be used on summoning instead.
Not if you got the split guys for a discount price i.e. If pinks are 100 blues are 80 and brims are 40 but you can get a set for 200
As it is summoning is bad as you basically have units in reserves that may never even come in as your casters can be targeted and sniped
Except you are are forgetting that summoning lets you pick your unit at the time of summoning so you get to tailor your list mid game
If you play mono god it's not nearly as useful so for me it sucks to get charged to have the power to summon and make it a piss poor tactic
Well tactically you are already shooting yourself in the foot going mono god so of course stuff is going to be bad when you handicap yourself
What happens if a unit of daemonettes charges a unit of daemonettes?
Does anybody else see the logical paradox that this would entail?
It's quite easy to see that there will be a rule that dictates what happens... for example, charging unit takes predecence, or the players unit whose turn it is.
Also the "equal points and no freebies" argument is invalid (currently) since some stuff (half of the Eldar book) is undercosted, which is essentially just the same thing, how it translates onto the tabletop.
Altough it's obvious there will be undercosted units in the new edition aswell. Atleast now it seems realistic there might be fixes coming, during some timeframe.
2. Since Galef has been talking about this, he'll be interested to read, and I quote:
"Have some Reinforcement Points for Blue Horrors and Brimstone Horrors as well, as these still split out of their parent unit like a series of Russian Dolls and are great for grabbing objectives and keeping enemy units busy long after other units would have been destroyed."
So. No. No free models for you.
While this is great from a balance standpoint, it literally means the Split rule will be worthless. If you are paying points for them already, why wouldn't you just deploy them as normal?
Versatility. I'd imagine you could buy them from the start, or set the points aside that could be used for multiple things, including splitting them off later, or summoning in other demons elsewhere. You have the options of spending the points up front for more initial power and consistency on the board vs leaving some in reserve for some later game flexibility with a bit more risk. So you could buy a unit of pinks and a unit of blues to run together, or you could save those points to see if it's worth more to split the blues off to hang onto an important objective or summon something else on a different part of the board.
Runic wrote:Also the "equal points and no freebies" argument is invalid (currently) since some stuff (half of the Eldar book) is undercosted, which is essentially just the same thing, how it translates onto the tabletop.
This isn't an argument in favor of freebies. This is an argument in favor of GW doing more playtesting and imposing better balance on their games.
Runic wrote:Also the "equal points and no freebies" argument is invalid (currently) since some stuff (half of the Eldar book) is undercosted, which is essentially just the same thing, how it translates onto the tabletop.
This isn't an argument in favor of freebies..
You're right. It's an argument in favour of costing disadvantages appropriately. Deploying blue horrors with the split rule gives them less value than deploying on the board at the beginning of the game and that should be reflected in the points costs.
Let me put it to you in a way I think you can empathize with: Assume GW, in all of their wisdom, gave rhinos a new special rule called targeted reinforcement. This rule means that rhinos and the squad inside them, have to start the game in reserve and select a friendly unit at the beginning of the game (could be a landraider, bikes, tactical squad, whatever...) and the rhino (and it's squad) only deploy on the turn when the selected friendly unit is completely destroyed. Now suddenly the rhino may not show up until the last half of the game, maybe it doesn't show up at all. This can have some very limited niche advantages but overall it's a rather large disadvantage. Now answer me honestly, would rhinos have the same value with this change?
It's important to remember the purpose of points; to price units based on their value. If their value goes down, as they would with the split rule, points should go down proportionately to reflect this.
chalkobob wrote:You're right. It's an argument in favour of costing disadvantages appropriately. Deploying blue horrors with the split rule gives them less value than deploying on the board at the beginning of the game and that should be reflected in the points costs.
No, it doesn't.
If you had the option to deploy the blue horrors as normal, but instead chose to use the Split rule, then that's on you.
You should pay the full points costs.
No freebies.
No discounts.
Really, by your argument, any model which can deep-strike should have a points-discount (which is, of course, an utterly ridiculous idea).
Let me put it to you in a way I think you can empathize with: Assume GW, in all of their wisdom, gave rhinos a new special rule called targeted reinforcement. This rule means that rhinos and the squad inside them, have to start the game in reserve and select a friendly unit at the beginning of the game (could be a landraider, bikes, tactical squad, whatever...) and the rhino (and it's squad) only deploy on the turn when the selected friendly unit is completely destroyed. Now suddenly the rhino may not show up until the last half of the game, maybe it doesn't show up at all. This can have some very limited niche advantages but overall it's a rather large disadvantage. Now answer me honestly, would rhinos have the same value with this change?
This is a bull gak comparison.
You have the option to deploy your entire force at the beginning of the game. If you choose not to deploy your entire force and instead use the Split rule later in the game, then that's on you, not on the rule set.
Talamare wrote:My point is... They should have just kept some of the basic USRs...
Because APPARENTLY THEY STILL EXIST...
The effects still exist.
However, because the rules are placed on the relevant datasheets, it means that you don't need to keep flipping back through the BRB to figure out what it means. If you have the datasheet for every unit you're using, then if you need something with that unit, you just check their sheet. At the moment, it's "check the unit, then check the rulebook". If you cut out the "check the rulebook" stage, then it shortens the time by at least half.
2. Since Galef has been talking about this, he'll be interested to read, and I quote:
"Have some Reinforcement Points for Blue Horrors and Brimstone Horrors as well, as these still split out of their parent unit like a series of Russian Dolls and are great for grabbing objectives and keeping enemy units busy long after other units would have been destroyed."
So. No. No free models for you.
While this is great from a balance standpoint, it literally means the Split rule will be worthless. If you are paying points for them already, why wouldn't you just deploy them as normal?
I'm personally disappointed because I bought 2 boxes of Blue/Brims and never got to play will the Split rule at all because once I new 8th was coming, I stopped playing 7th.
At least 2 boxes was all I bought
If you had the option to deploy the blue horrors as normal, but instead chose to use the Split rule, then that's on you.
If you had the option to replace the bolters on space marine with lasguns with no additional benefit that would be on the player as well, but in a balanced rule set, that would come with a points reduction to reflect the decrease in value. In other words, putting it on the player for taking the weaker of 2 options is fair to an extent, but in a balanced rule set neither option would be worse, they would come with trade-offs (like points adjustments) to make either option viable.
Really, by your argument, any model which can deep-strike should have a points-discount (which is, of course, an utterly ridiculous idea).
That's disingenuous. Deep strike has the advantage of deploying almost anywhere, and the overwhelming majority of the time by turn 3 or earlier. It's an advantage, not a drawback like deploying with the split rule is.
You have the option to deploy your entire force at the beginning of the game. If you choose not to deploy your entire force and instead use the Split rule later in the game, then that's on you, not on the rule set.
No. If there is no reason to ever to deploy with the split rule over usual deployment it is most definitely on the rule set. If options exist, they should be balanced. You could also put it on the player for taking heavy bolters on devastators instead of grav-cannons, after all, it is their choice. I, however, would prefer if grav-cannons and heavy bolters were appropriately balanced (be it with point cost or power) so that they were both worth using.
They are balanced, you can either start them on the table and get full value or have them pop up later into multiple units as a distraction and a punishment for killing your objective huggers.
Use your tactics here. The point for splitting are summoning points, if your opponents leave the pink horrors alone, the use the summoning points to summon the unit in normally, or use them to summon more useful units up field. Since you're not locked into taking the horrors as your summon it's a huge advantage and a mind game for your foe.
Dudeface wrote: They are balanced, you can either start them on the table and get full value or have them pop up later into multiple units as a distraction and a punishment for killing your objective huggers.
Use your tactics here. The point for splitting are summoning points, if your opponents leave the pink horrors alone, the use the summoning points to summon the unit in normally, or use them to summon more useful units up field. Since you're not locked into taking the horrors as your summon it's a huge advantage and a mind game for your foe.
Indeed, if while in reserve you have the option to summon them or split them, than yes I can see this. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you had to commit to splitting the unit once decided in pre-game deployment, which, outside of a few very niche situations, would be largely disadvantageous.
I do think models starting on the board are worth more than models appearing from split. If you pay the same points to get split then it's akin to a terrible reserves mechanic where your reserves only ever come on IF your opponent decides to destroy a unit of pinks. I would have preferred the option to buy split as a unit upgrade for slightly fewer points than blues/brims would cost if bought independently so it'd be a real choice between buying it or starting with more models usable on the board from the start of the game.
Anything is better than the old split rules though. They were game breaking on 9pt horrors, and doubly so when you could summon ten more on a WC3 spell.
Talamare wrote:My point is... They should have just kept some of the basic USRs...
Because APPARENTLY THEY STILL EXIST...
The effects still exist.
However, because the rules are placed on the relevant datasheets, it means that you don't need to keep flipping back through the BRB to figure out what it means. If you have the datasheet for every unit you're using, then if you need something with that unit, you just check their sheet. At the moment, it's "check the unit, then check the rulebook". If you cut out the "check the rulebook" stage, then it shortens the time by at least half.
You don't flip into the BRB for common USR. I take the stance that rarely used USR should have been removed, but there was no need to remove the big few.
I don't know about you, but I bring a 1-2 page Army List that doesn't include Rules to matches. Just what they have been loaded out with. For the most part, this works fine since I try to avoid any units with rare or obnoxious rules. I know that the majority of my LGS is basically the same.
Do you know what DOES cause us to pull out a rulebook? When a unit has a rule that only appears on a single unit. This is going to cause MORE people to look into their rules OR cause people to instead of printing 1-2 pages into printing 8-10 pages.
Dudeface wrote: They are balanced, you can either start them on the table and get full value or have them pop up later into multiple units as a distraction and a punishment for killing your objective huggers.
Use your tactics here. The point for splitting are summoning points, if your opponents leave the pink horrors alone, the use the summoning points to summon the unit in normally, or use them to summon more useful units up field. Since you're not locked into taking the horrors as your summon it's a huge advantage and a mind game for your foe.
Indeed, if while in reserve you have the option to summon them or split them, than yes I can see this. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you had to commit to splitting the unit once decided in pre-game deployment, which, outside of a few very niche situations, would be largely disadvantageous.
From what I read, it is effectively a "summoning pool". Points you did not spend building the army set aside to cover any new unit you create throughout the game.
They Snipe your Psychic Summoner Guy: Spend those points on Splits instead.
They slaughter the Pinks in such a way that Blues or Brimstones would just be a waste of time, Psychic Summoner Guy summons a Bloodthirster instead.
Or a little of both. It is your point pool, do what is needed with it during the game.
It was very frustrating fighting pink spam, and having those blobs be able to shoot D everywhere. While it will be just as frustrating to fight in 8th, at least it will reduce the amount of other demon's being brought to the table due to them now costing points.
I do feel that blues and brims should be discounted, as their effectiveness does drop off. Not free, but definitely discounted.
What me and our local demons player have been debating, is if psykers will know X spells, or be able to roll on psychic tables a la 7th (neither of us have played AoS, so we don't know the precedence). Anyone know how this works?
Klowny wrote: It was very frustrating fighting pink spam, and having those blobs be able to shoot D everywhere. While it will be just as frustrating to fight in 8th, at least it will reduce the amount of other demon's being brought to the table due to them now costing points.
I do feel that blues and brims should be discounted, as their effectiveness does drop off. Not free, but definitely discounted.
What me and our local demons player have been debating, is if psykers will know X spells, or be able to roll on psychic tables a la 7th (neither of us have played AoS, so we don't know the precedence). Anyone know how this works?
I think that we can safely infer the answer from the the rubric marines war scroll.
Yep that's what I was hoping for. Demons ATM are very hit or miss, if they roll well on the tables they are incredibly strong, otherwise.... not so much. Having some random elements in a game is ok, but I've had games where my friend has rolled terribly before the game and it sealed his fate before the game even started, which isn't that much fun to play. He's also rolled extremely well, and made it not fun at all for me either. Not much point playing those games. With set powers it makes it more tractable
Klowny wrote: Yep that's what I was hoping for. Demons ATM are very hit or miss, if they roll well on the tables they are incredibly strong, otherwise.... not so much. Having some random elements in a game is ok, but I've had games where my friend has rolled terribly before the game and it sealed his fate before the game even started, which isn't that much fun to play. He's also rolled extremely well, and made it not fun at all for me either. Not much point playing those games. With set powers it makes it more tractable
Here's the article that I was referencing. Check out what the data sheet says for the Aspiring Sorcerer. It's just like in AoS.
Klowny wrote: Yep that's what I was hoping for. Demons ATM are very hit or miss, if they roll well on the tables they are incredibly strong, otherwise.... not so much. Having some random elements in a game is ok, but I've had games where my friend has rolled terribly before the game and it sealed his fate before the game even started, which isn't that much fun to play. He's also rolled extremely well, and made it not fun at all for me either. Not much point playing those games. With set powers it makes it more tractable
Here's the article that I was referencing. Check out what the data sheet says for the Aspiring Sorcerer. It's just like in AoS.
Yep thats the article that has caused the discussion between us. As I've said we don't play AoS so don't know how it works in that system. But I read it as that psyker knows smite only as its what is stated in the data sheet.
But my friend interpreted it differently.
As every psyker knows smite, and it says 'an aspiring sorcerer can attempt to manifest one psychic power each phase), he read it as the sorcerer knowing smite + table abilities.
So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?
Galef wrote:While this is great from a balance standpoint
Of course it is. "Free" anything, especially free models/upgrades, by definition is imbalancing. It's a stupid rule and they should have never implemented it in the first place..
Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.
Likewise, units that can summon should have that factored into their cost.
Having to keep points aside is a silly way of handling summoning.
Klowny wrote:So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?
In AoS, you can cast all of the spells, and only the spells, that it lists on the individual data sheets.
AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!
Klowny wrote:So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?
In AoS, you can cast all of the spells, and only the spells, that it lists on the individual data sheets.
AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!
insaniak wrote:Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.
Funny.
Because I'm pretty sure that you were singing a different tune when the Gladius Strike Force came out.
Here's the deal:
Let's ignore fairness. Summoning at, the very least, presents the appearance of unfairness.
If you go through 2300 points of models by the end of the game, but it was only an 1850 game, I can't help but feel as though the odds have been stacked against me.
Summoning is stupid. Splitting is stupid.
They should just remove it entirely...
However, in all fairness to the summoning armies that already exist, they are keeping it around. And nerfing it to the point of being...perhaps not unusable...but certainly not good.
Ultimately, I like this state of affairs.
Because feth summoning. Feth splitting. And feth free points in general.
Traditio wrote: AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!
You mean horrible, right?
There's a reason that having multiple Wizards in the same army is seen as underpowered for the most part, and part of it stems from that rule.
I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.
I LOVE the rule of one and hope that it's part of 8th edition.
And I look forward to laughing my head off with maniacal glee when people realize that their psyker heavy armies have been utterly neutered.
insaniak wrote:Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.
If you go through 2300 points of models by the end of the game, but it was only an 1850 game, I can't help but feel as though the odds have been stacked against me.
And feth free points in general.
Agree with these points, war convo wasnt terribly fun to play against, this had a ridiculous amount of free points built in. First time my friend played a similar list that wasnt a convo i was shocked at how little troops he had.
But summoning and splitting are cool things unique to demons. Like most things they sucked when abused, this seems to be a good way to bring it in line and reduces the ability for the rules to be abused.
Because I'm pretty sure that you were singing a different tune when the Gladius Strike Force came out.
I don't recall discussing Horrors when the Gladius rules were released.
If you go through 2300 points of models by the end of the game, but it was only an 1850 game, I can't help but feel as though the odds have been stacked against me.
You missed the point. Blue Horrors aren't free models. They're essentially nothing more than a wound counter. If you replaced a Space Marine Captain with a different model each time he suffered a wound, the second and subsequent models aren't 'free'... They just represent the wounded state of the Captain. It's the same with Horrors, except that the statline and the number of models change.... Which is a known, predictable effect, and so can be points costed accordingly.
The issue with Horrors isn't that you get 'free' models, but is simply whether or not Pink Horrors are costed appropriately to represent their unique method of tallying wounds.
insaniak wrote: It's the same with Horrors, except that the statline and the number of models change.... Which is a known, predictable effect, and so can be points costed accordingly.
Something like this point was mentioned before, but I don't think that it flies.
There is no difference, in terms of the final result, between paying x points cost (your proposal) vs. paying w + x + y points cost, which, when added together, equals x.
If anything, the "pay as you go" system is actually more advantageous to the daemons player.
...assuming, of course, that he wasn't just wanting to "bake it into the points cost" to receive additional wounds/models at a discount (in other words, free points).
There is no difference, in terms of the final result, between paying x points cost (your proposal) vs. paying w + x + y points cost, which, when added together, equals x. .
Except that one is simple and straightforward, and the other is pointless book-keeping that will result in people just not bothering with the splitting.
There is no difference, in terms of the final result, between paying x points cost (your proposal) vs. paying w + x + y points cost, which, when added together, equals x. .
Except that one is simple and straightforward, and the other is pointless book-keeping that will result in people just not bothering with the splitting.
Now that you mention it, the pointless book-keeping does have the potential to be annoying. I mean...who really feels like standing around and waiting while his opponent does math?
On the other hand, it does have the potential to kill, at least for all intents and purposes, the splitting rule. If it's such a hassle and provides such marginal benefit that nobody actually bothers using it, then so much the better.
Klowny wrote:So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?
In AoS, you can cast all of the spells, and only the spells, that it lists on the individual data sheets.
AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!
Sweet! Thanks for clearing that up Traditio!
Shame he's wrong.
Some of the more recent codexes like Sylvaneth provide extra spells (on tables) for all the units in the book and from what I've seen summoning spells aren't on the mages warscroll. And the rule of one isn't mandatory it's only if you choose Matched Play.
On the other hand, it does have the potential to kill, at least for all intents and purposes, the splitting rule. If it's such a hassle and provides such marginal benefit that nobody actually bothers using it, then so much the better.
That's not a good thing.
As much of a pain as it can be to deal with on the table, splitting is a cool, characterful touch for horrors. It was a shame when it went away the first time, and it would be even more sad to see it go away again simply because the rules render it pointless.
insaniak wrote:Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.
Funny.
Because I'm pretty sure that you were singing a different tune when the Gladius Strike Force came out.
How are they even comparable? Summoning at the least has an actual opportunity cost post list-building phase- Gladius does not. Trying to shift the argument to focus only on the conclusion (extra units) while ignoring the process that got us there is disingenuous.
You can make the claim that free units are bad, and most people would agree with you. It is absolutely possible to have spontaneous summoning mechanics that are balanced, however.
Traditio wrote: AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!
You mean horrible, right?
There's a reason that having multiple Wizards in the same army is seen as underpowered for the most part, and part of it stems from that rule.
And assuming GW didn't flat out lie when they said psychics will be scalable it won't exist on 40k.
I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.
That's not a problem with psykers, it's a problem with GW not building adequate psyker counters or alternatives into armies that don't have psykers. Adding in more anti-psyker options would make for a much better game than neutering psykers.
I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.
I LOVE the rule of one and hope that it's part of 8th edition.
And I look forward to laughing my head off with maniacal glee when people realize that their psyker heavy armies have been utterly neutered.
So because you hate it, anyone who likes it should suffer? Wow... ok then...
Many of us actually enjoy the psychic phase and the extra aspect it brings (sans invis).
Some of the best lists I've seen involved either no psykers, or at most 1. There are many lists without psykers that would be at an advantage against 98% of other lists that show up to the table, that has nothing to do with psykers (obviously as I just stated the lists didn't have them) but to do with the lack of balance in the game as a whole. The fact you need psykers or you will certainly be at a disadvantage in 7th is a massive fallacy.
Rule of 1 sounds ridiculous. Want to balance powers? Then cost them appropriately. Rule of 1 means the more psykers you take the worse your army is in comparison to an army with just one or two psykers. That is actually a lack of balance - psyker heavy armies should be just as competitive as psyker light armies, or you just destroy the balance you are trying to create.
I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.
That's not a problem with psykers, it's a problem with GW not building adequate psyker counters or alternatives into armies that don't have psykers. Adding in more anti-psyker options would make for a much better game than neutering psykers.
sos are a rock-paper-scissors solution. Not a good one.
I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.
I LOVE the rule of one and hope that it's part of 8th edition.
And I look forward to laughing my head off with maniacal glee when people realize that their psyker heavy armies have been utterly neutered.
So in other words, you'll only be too happy if certain platsyles become absolute trash, even though you've complained incessantly in the past of these forums about those exact kind of people?
Screw that noise. Seriously if you're that spiteful you are no better than those people who spammed power-lists in casual games because they like winning more than they like other people.
What happened to you crusading for balance? Even if you weren't always correct with the way you wanted to balance things in the past (or what was actually imbalanced), and we've disagreed at times because of that I always respected how you had the best intentions. Come on Traditio, you're better than this.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: What happened to you crusading for balance? Even if you weren't always correct with the way you wanted to balance things in the past (or what was actually imbalanced), and we've disagreed at times because of that I always respected how you had the best intentions. Come on Traditio, you're better than this.
Or it was never about balance for him to push his playstyle preferences to others. Balance can go to hell as long as his playstyle is top dog.
Sure looks like that. Almost makes me wish 8th ed missile launchers would have some sort of gets hot on 1-3 and fire shots that are even weaker than now.
There's alot of power gamers here just trying to justify how Summoning Spam.. One of the top tournament lists even after Horrors lost the ability to spam summon from creation. Isn't that bad, ok...
Matt.Kingsley wrote: What happened to you crusading for balance? Even if you weren't always correct with the way you wanted to balance things in the past (or what was actually imbalanced), and we've disagreed at times because of that I always respected how you had the best intentions. Come on Traditio, you're better than this.
Or it was never about balance for him to push his playstyle preferences to others. Balance can go to hell as long as his playstyle is top dog.
Sure looks like that. Almost makes me wish 8th ed missile launchers would have some sort of gets hot on 1-3 and fire shots that are even weaker than now.
Reminds me of the TVTropes summary of a Scrub:
TVTropes wrote:Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what he/she feels is a game imbalance back into balance, so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but you would clearly win using 2 of them, then those 2 characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob Rule" in Goldeneye, often put in place because, well, Oddjob is a Game Breaker.
However, it can go too far. When it does, you have the Scrub.
The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The Metagame can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort at learning the tactic. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning the practice without making a good faith effort in actually getting around it with the in-game rules.
The Scrub will often consider the tactics that he bans "Game Breakers". However, what constitutes a Game Breaker varies from person to person. Within a particular skill level, a game can be broken in that a simple repetitive tactic can lead to success. A more skilled player could stop it, but if it requires a great deal more skill to stop the tactic than to perform it, then it can easily appear to be a Game Breaker. Not that it matters; even if the "offending" player changes to a different strategy and wins again, the new strategy is also "broken".
What ultimately makes the Scrub undesirable isn't the rulesetting; it is the attitude. Players will often agree to refrain from using certain moves or from selecting certain characters so they can have fun without investing a lot of time into learning the game. The Scrub, on the other hand, believes that his way is the only proper way to play the game and refuses to acknowledge that the game could be more fun any other way.
Summoning is legit. "Free Points" have existed for awhile as is (Necron Tomb Spyders, Without Number Tyranids, Tervigons, Chenkov, etc) and have their own drawbacks that prevent them from being purely superior to armies that don't get free units. Nobody ever accused Tyranids of being OP back in 5e for example. Likewise, most the issues with Daemons are not "hurr they summon" as much as certain builds let them win by "not dying" (Tzeentch + Invulnerable Buffs, Fecundity Locus, etc).
If you turn summoning into a pool of points that's drawn away from the rest of your army, summoning becomes a tool that's only truly viable for those armies which intend to go mostly null anyway. Armies that rely on extensive board prescence and attrition over maneuver (meaning Word Bearers, the most popular Legion [not Death Guard obviously] as who needs Legion Tactics for models with VOTLW when you can get Possessed as Troops) get hosed by comparison.
It's not like "summon thousands of points for free=win the game" is actually that mathematically feasible by most accounts anyway. At best, you can annoy infantry with summoned flamers, annoy a target with some Screamers, or set a few board traps, but summoning isn't going to let you Zerg your way to victory in most cases.
(PS: If 7e summon rules had remained a thing, I would have been cool with a general restriction that you must declare what you want to summon before you roll. Also, GSC Telepathic Summons could be restricted by units only rolling a D3 for Cult Ambush arrival.)
koooaei wrote: Summoning is still pretty useful even if you pay points for it. It's kinda like deepstriking but with ability to choose what you want to deepstrike.
In practice, for most players that's going to translate to 'choosing' the same unit/s of daemons that they use every game. It's an illusion of choice, because few players are going to go out and buy a whole slew of extra daemons on the off-chance that they'll want to use them sometime.
At which point, it's just a different name for deep striking. Which is fine, but a completely different beast.
koooaei wrote: Summoning is still pretty useful even if you pay points for it. It's kinda like deepstriking but with ability to choose what you want to deepstrike.
In practice, for most players that's going to translate to 'choosing' the same unit/s of daemons that they use every game. It's an illusion of choice, because few players are going to go out and buy a whole slew of extra daemons on the off-chance that they'll want to use them sometime.
At which point, it's just a different name for deep striking. Which is fine, but a completely different beast.
Agreed. And it could be potentially worse than Deep Striking if the casting value is too high. And it can be denied by the enemy.
So you'll end up paying points for a unit that doesn't come in as reliably as if you just put them on the table from the start.
This is ok for Summoning units, but for Split horrors, it's even worse. Blue and Brims might be worth taking on their own, but basically just as cheaper versions of Pink Horrors.
it is unlikely to be worth buying a unit or more of all 3 on the off chance that the opponent decided to let you split.
Now if you don't have to buy the whole unit, it could be worth while. Say you set aside 200pts for Summoning and use 180pts on a unit, leaving you 20pts left.
if you can just use those 20pts for 4 Blue Horrors to split (instead of needing 50 for 10) it could be a good use for left-over points.
koooaei wrote: Summoning is still pretty useful even if you pay points for it. It's kinda like deepstriking but with ability to choose what you want to deepstrike.
In practice, for most players that's going to translate to 'choosing' the same unit/s of daemons that they use every game. It's an illusion of choice, because few players are going to go out and buy a whole slew of extra daemons on the off-chance that they'll want to use them sometime.
At which point, it's just a different name for deep striking. Which is fine, but a completely different beast.
And unlike deep strike you may not even get a chance to bring them in (your guys are killed or stuck in combat so can't cast or SoS unit)
I will not even bother and as a mono God army I rarely summoned and mostly did it to keep me in games
The split rule was a fun throwback (that I wasted cash on it seems) that has a good chance to cost me games (free kill points)
Now I will just deploy them or sell them on eBay
As for psykers in AoS they get listed powers plus one from the army's spell list (that spell may be a roll or it can be picked depends on the group)
As for mister I hate psykers if the rule of one is put in it may kill off mono chaos if the army powers are done poorly or not in
Why run rubric troops if you pay for powers you can't use. (This is why respawn characters and summon characters are not used in AoS)
the gathering storm set has come back from the dead that is in ways like a summon you good with that being removed?
(I hate people who just want to nerf armys they don't like)
I think people are missing the point of the new summoning pool. As GSC also summons and I play that that maybe I just see things differently.
I have a summoning army. Anything I am not putting on the board turn one or regular reserves goes to my summoning pool.
I take 2 summoners and 2 units of pink horrors as I plan on using them to start them on the table. I don't buy any blue or brimstone.
If the pinks get shot I can chose to split or not. If no one shots them it's fine cuz I'll just use them for something else. If by turn 3 I don't think I need the points I'll just dump them into something to don't lose them.
You don't buy blue horrors and lose them if there is no split. Just make sure you use the points before the game ends it you lose all summoning units.
I just hope there is a distinct difference between Pinks and Blues besided -1S & T. With the new To-Wound chart and being able to always wound on 6, I really don't see any point in taking Pinks over equal points of Blues/Brims. Maybe each level casts its power more easily? Or does more damage?
And if the current points proportion between all 3 horrors is roughly the same, I could easily see players taking units of 10 Blues and 10 Brims instead of 10 Pinks. You would get more out of them that way as Brims are really cheap (and thus less risky to leave in your reserve points) and with no Instant Death this edition, Brims seem twice as durable as they were in 7th.
Galef wrote: You would get more out of them that way as Brims are really cheap (and thus less risky to leave in your reserve points) and with no Instant Death this edition, Brims seem twice as durable as they were in 7th.
-
See that's what I'm talking about. You have no "brimstone in reserve". You have points. That could be brimstone, pinks, bloodthirters, or anything. Maybe instead of that LoC you were going to summon you decide to bring in blood letters, but that leaves you with some points left over. Then you can just get a cheap unit like brimestones just so the points don't go to waste.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:So in other words, you'll only be too happy if certain platsyles become absolute trash, even though you've complained incessantly in the past of these forums about those exact kind of people?
I've spent an edition having people shouting to me from the rooftops that one of the problems with my army is that I don't spam psykers and take advantage of OP psyker abilities and combos.
Of facing significant disadvantages because my opponent magically (literally) can shoot through walls, gain 2+ rerollable invuln saves, etc.
At this point, balance?
Balance?
Sure, I'd love balance.
But failing that, I'll also take immense pleasure in returning the favor, of saying to people: "Oh, see, I can see the problem with your army right now. You have way too many psykers. You have the equivalent of a 7th edition librarius conclave? See? That's where you went wrong."
the thing I am most excited about with the new Summoning is that is seems like you can customize the unit instead if it being the minimum unit size. So I can summon a single unit of 5+ Screamers as long as I have enough "reserve points" left. I can dig that over 2 "free" 3-man units that are too small to really make any difference outside of being harassment units.
My concern over Horrors is there being a clear "no-brainer" between the 3. In 7th, each had a purpose. Minimum Brims to satisfy Troop tax, units of 11 blues to maximaze WC potential, or Pinks being Summoned to maximize the amount of wounds you could Split. I am glad all of these "purposes" seem less viable in 8th for balance sake, but I really hope there is a reason for me to own 1-2 units of each (as I do).
I'm rather glad I am not one of those players that goes overboard with any certain unit and did not buy a bunch of these guys.
Earth127 wrote: Depends: if you've been slowly building up your collection for years, there are some people out there with huge collections.
That's why I said 'most' and not 'all'... Most players don't have huge collections. They collect an army, and leave it at that.
I get your point. I typically had Deamonettes and FleshHounds for Summoning, Disc Heralds for Sacrifice, Plaque Drones & Screamers for Incursion, etc.
Hopefully, "Summoning" has been condensed to 1 singlular power in which you can summon any Daemon unit using Reserve points. That would be the best way to create versatility.
If they break it down to separate powers, it becomes harder to "pick' what you want to summon and you essentially have to build your "sideboard" along with your list and pretty much always take the same units: no versatility.
Galas wrote: If Chaos Cultistt can be sacrificed to make summoning auto pass the test, for example, that could be very cool.
Spoiler:
I just want to kill my own Chaos Cultists. It has been always a secret dark desire of me when I play my Chaos Marines
That would be super cool. Maybe there's a stratagem that always you to remove you own units to increase your Reserve points and immediately summon a unit with those extra points.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:So in other words, you'll only be too happy if certain platsyles become absolute trash, even though you've complained incessantly in the past of these forums about those exact kind of people?
I've spent an edition having people shouting to me from the rooftops that one of the problems with my army is that I don't spam psykers and take advantage of OP psyker abilities and combos.
Of facing significant disadvantages because my opponent magically (literally) can shoot through walls, gain 2+ rerollable invuln saves, etc.
At this point, balance?
Balance?
Sure, I'd love balance.
But failing that, I'll also take immense pleasure in returning the favor, of saying to people: "Oh, see, I can see the problem with your army right now. You have way too many psykers. You have the equivalent of a 7th edition librarius conclave? See? That's where you went wrong."
Schadenfreude is a
Yup, that's one of your problems. Divination for the IG makes them solid, not OP. That, and sinking big points into vehicles that are made garbage by the base rulebook.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:So in other words, you'll only be too happy if certain platsyles become absolute trash, even though you've complained incessantly in the past of these forums about those exact kind of people?
I've spent an edition having people shouting to me from the rooftops that one of the problems with my army is that I don't spam psykers and take advantage of OP psyker abilities and combos.
People told you that you just ignored solutions to your problems...
pm713 wrote:People told you that you just ignored solutions to your problems...
Schadenfreude.
I mean, really, my comments aren't due to balance concerns so much as the joy that I'll feel when certain power gamers realize that their power-gamey armies are now useless.
Defend summoning all you want.
But if you used a summoning army, it's because, when I asked you "Would you like to play an 1850 game," you were lying to me when you said "yes."
So yes. I'll enjoy it when your (not you in particular, but a daemons army player in general) army is now useless.
If you're playing a psyker heavy armor, chances are, it was to capitalize on the unfair psychic shenanigans that were available.
Meanwhile, here I am with my assault marines, devastators, tactical marines and sternguard...
...who are looking pretty good for 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be clear:
My "harsh" comments aren't because I don't want balance.
I do.
I really do.
However, I also do ardently desire to witness the complaints and sorrows of the WAAC types with armies that are, all of a sudden, completely useless.
pm713 wrote:People told you that you just ignored solutions to your problems...
Schadenfreude.
I mean, really, my comments aren't due to balance concerns so much as the joy that I'll feel when certain power gamers realize that their power-gamey armies are now useless.
Defend summoning all you want.
But if you used a summoning army, it's because, when I asked you "Would you like to play an 1850 game," you were lying to me when you said "yes."
So yes. I'll enjoy it when your (not you in particular, but a daemons army player in general) army is now useless.
If you're playing a psyker heavy armor, chances are, it was to capitalize on the unfair psychic shenanigans that were available.
Meanwhile, here I am with my assault marines, devastators, tactical marines and sternguard...
...who are looking pretty good for 8th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be clear:
My "harsh" comments aren't because I don't want balance.
I do.
I really do.
However, I also do ardently desire to witness the complaints and sorrows of the WAAC types with armies that are, all of a sudden, completely useless.
You'll note I haven't actually defended summoning at all. You don't want balance at all. You just want to be the one with an OP army but you bury it under senseless complaints.
My "harsh" comments aren't because I don't want balance.
I do.
I really do.
However, I also do ardently desire to witness the complaints and sorrows of the WAAC types with armies that are, all of a sudden, completely useless.
So you like balance, but you really, really want to see people have their armies be neutered to actually be worthless to the point where you'd prefer it to balance as long as you get to gloat by having a power-build army?
Looks like my judgement of your character was misguided, then - you're no better than many of the people you criticise.
Seriously dude, I get that you hate basically everything that aren't Tacticals, Devs, Sternguard and Kantor, but you aren't the only one who plays this game.
Also many of the threads where people suggested you change your lists were about games where you lost hard to a normal, non-cheesy list because your army lacked diversity or any real punch. I've seen the many threads where you complain about something that isn't broken and try to fix it, so you can't tell me you haven't struggled with non-cheesy lists in the past. People suggested you diversify your army so it wasn't just flamers, bolters and missiles so you could deal with other threats.
You shouldn't take your anger and frustration out other people and their lists, or want to gloat because your army is broken compared to your opponents. For every scatbike and summon-spam Daemon player that existed there was an Eldar player who only took basic bikes with 1-in-3 Shuricannons supporting units of guardians or Daemon players like myself who didn't play Tzeentch PSyker Spam and only used summoning once or twice a game to deal with the casualties suffered from attrition and bad Warp Storm rolls.
Talamare wrote:My point is... They should have just kept some of the basic USRs...
Because APPARENTLY THEY STILL EXIST...
The effects still exist.
However, because the rules are placed on the relevant datasheets, it means that you don't need to keep flipping back through the BRB to figure out what it means. If you have the datasheet for every unit you're using, then if you need something with that unit, you just check their sheet. At the moment, it's "check the unit, then check the rulebook". If you cut out the "check the rulebook" stage, then it shortens the time by at least half.
The annoying disadvantage of that is the fact it's harder to learn your opponent's rules. Right now, I can go up against an army I've never faced before and quite often find they have a bunch of special rules that I already know because they use USRs. Removing them completely seems to add unnecessary overheads.
Having a whole bunch of unique, special snowflake rules also has more possibility of rules being incompatible with one another, leading to extra conflicts between rules. That's quite apart from the possibility of two functionally identical rules being written in a subtly different way, which then breaks the game because it's so hard to keep track of thousands of individual rules.
Talamare wrote:My point is... They should have just kept some of the basic USRs...
Because APPARENTLY THEY STILL EXIST...
The effects still exist.
However, because the rules are placed on the relevant datasheets, it means that you don't need to keep flipping back through the BRB to figure out what it means. If you have the datasheet for every unit you're using, then if you need something with that unit, you just check their sheet. At the moment, it's "check the unit, then check the rulebook". If you cut out the "check the rulebook" stage, then it shortens the time by at least half.
The annoying disadvantage of that is the fact it's harder to learn your opponent's rules. Right now, I can go up against an army I've never faced before and quite often find they have a bunch of special rules that I already know because they use USRs. Removing them completely seems to add unnecessary overheads.
Having a whole bunch of unique, special snowflake rules also has more possibility of rules being incompatible with one another, leading to extra conflicts between rules. That's quite apart from the possibility of two functionally identical rules being written in a subtly different way, which then breaks the game because it's so hard to keep track of thousands of individual rules.
I remember this. 3rd ed Grey Knights in 5th did not actually have Instant Death so their Force Weapons could actually one-shot models with Eternal Warrior because the rules for Eternal Warrior were written to "ignore Instant Death."
I don't understand how people seem to overlook the fact that Summoning ISN'T ACTUALLY FREE. Have people never heard of opportunity cost? To be able to summon units you have to invest points into units with those abilities. With the new summoning rules, you basically pay twice for the units you want to summon in game - first when you pick the psyker who'll summon them, because his cost includes the cost of his powers, and then a second time when you choose to use summoning over making use of his other offensive/utility spells. And you risk having those psykers destroyed and preventing you making effective use of your summoning points. The issue however, was that summoning allowed you to double dip into more summoning and that the units who could summon were not appropriately priced.
Asura Varuna wrote: I don't understand how people seem to overlook the fact that Summoning ISN'T ACTUALLY FREE. Have people never heard of opportunity cost? To be able to summon units you have to invest points into units with those abilities. With the new summoning rules, you basically pay twice for the units you want to summon in game - first when you pick the psyker who'll summon them, because his cost includes the cost of his powers, and then a second time when you choose to use summoning over making use of his other offensive/utility spells. And you risk having those psykers destroyed and preventing you making effective use of your summoning points. The issue however, was that summoning allowed you to double dip into more summoning and that the units who could summon were not appropriately priced.
All of this, effectively. Not to mention that most Psykers only have 2 wounds, non-Daemon Psykers Perils on any double, Perils has a 2 in 3 chance of a wound (with several results either forcing ld checks to disable powers, Warp charge, or kill the Psyker outright), summoning in a crowded table was suicide if you weren't Battle Brothers with Daemons and didn't have access to Icons or Cursed Earth...
...it's this same mindset that led to people complaining that Lash was OP in 5th mechhammer, when Chaos struggled to cram whatever AT in that it could.
I find opportunistic summoning more annoying than dedicated summoning myself. I've had several chaos opponents have moderate amount of dice, roll high several turns in a row, and just barely get the summons off. It's more points added to a list that's actually trying to do stuff. Plus, those chariots of tzeentch have annoying rules.
I disagree on it being an illusion of choice. You have a choice as to what to summon based on what you might need.
Will I summon the same stuff every game, maybe, maybe in different turns.
Maybe I will summon two units of screamers instead if I am facing more tanks or more pinks if I need more objectives.
It also seems like great choices to have especially if you play undivided.
I am excited about summoning with my 1k sons and setting aside points to do so will be easier for my opponent to swallow.
Though I do agree with what someone said earlier, I do not remember folks complaining about Tervigons spawning being OP, necron spyders though... with those crazy armor degrading bugs, that was crazy.
People bitched all the time about Tervigon spawning being OP. Honestly they were. Used to get TS and AG upgrades for free, spawn 6, move 6 and charge for a 12"+d6 charge range turn they came on. Oh and spawning onto the other side of a wall the Tervigon was hiding behind was great.
And add in catalyst...
People hated Tervigons and the fact that 3 of them gave you a few hundred extra points in models and upgrades. What do you think we ran before Flyrant spam?
Gloomfang wrote: People bitched all the time about Tervigon spawning being OP. Honestly they were. Used to get TS and AG upgrades for free, spawn 6, move 6 and charge for a 12"+d6 charge range turn they came on. Oh and spawning onto the other side of a wall the Tervigon was hiding behind was great.
And add in catalyst...
People hated Tervigons and the fact that 3 of them gave you a few hundred extra points in models and upgrades. What do you think we ran before Flyrant spam?
Let's see:
The biggest thing Tervigons had besides spawning and buffing was guaranteed Catalyst. Only problem being this was an edition where denying powers was hideously easy (Space Wolves, Runes of Warding, etc). IIRC, Termagants also did not have Fleet either (the only shooting units with Fleet were Raveners/Lictors/Trygons).
At best, they could tickle a Rhino so it was shaken up, bunch up because no consolidate, get Tank-shocked if the Tyranid player wasn't careful with defense-in-depth, and proceed to lose a mass of troops to No Retreat Wounds...
Depends on the edition of 40k with the old codex on the powers. The 5 "tervifex" list was really popular and OP for a while.
And the issue we are talking about us broken summoning units. Tervigons were WAY undercosted and the tax to take then was a joke. They camped objectives, wrecked tanks and produced hordes of tarpit units for free. And you still had a ton of points to spend on the rest of your army to deal with stuff the they couldn't.
They nerfed them hard and increased the cost and that's why you don't see them spammed now. The cost of the units it can build has been sort of priced in properly.
The original question was that only demons have had this issue. Other armies had this issue too.
Gloomfang wrote: Depends on the edition of 40k with the old codex on the powers. The 5 "tervifex" list was really popular and OP for a while.
And the issue we are talking about us broken summoning units. Tervigons were WAY undercosted and the tax to take then was a joke. They camped objectives, wrecked tanks and produced hordes of tarpit units for free. And you still had a ton of points to spend on the rest of your army to deal with stuff the they couldn't.
They nerfed them hard and increased the cost and that's why you don't see them spammed now. The cost of the units it can build has been sort of priced in properly.
The original question was that only demons have had this issue. Other armies had this issue too.
They didn't wreck tanks. Hive Guard wrecked tanks, or at least damaged them enough for the short run. You could make a Nid list work if you abused 5e cover mechanics and distributed AT throughout every slot that could take it, but the largest issue 5e Nids had was that 40k is a game where "one unit shoots at one unit", and it was an edition known for mass Razorbacks (or Meltavets in Chimeras, etc).
Not to drag this into the demon topic, but it applies I think as we are still talking about psykers and summoning.
A tervifex had 3 powers, you swapped it for biomancy to try and get iron arm, endurence and warp speed in some combination. You also crushing claws for the extra D3 attacks. As the powers were generally self targeting you rarely could stop them from going off. Smash at the time only cost them one attack and then you added all the extra attacks at the much higher strength it was 4 to 6 attacks on a charge and HoW. They wrecked tanks and anything else in thier path and punched WAY above points cost.
Demons are currently in the same position. Undercosted units that produce free units that get some wargear or othet buffs that were never considered when they were created. Then the unit got spammed.
Demons are getting the correction now. I hope it isn't as bad as it was for Nids.
Asura Varuna wrote: I don't understand how people seem to overlook the fact that Summoning ISN'T ACTUALLY FREE. Have people never heard of opportunity cost? To be able to summon units you have to invest points into units with those abilities. With the new summoning rules, you basically pay twice for the units you want to summon in game - first when you pick the psyker who'll summon them, because his cost includes the cost of his powers, and then a second time when you choose to use summoning over making use of his other offensive/utility spells. And you risk having those psykers destroyed and preventing you making effective use of your summoning points. The issue however, was that summoning allowed you to double dip into more summoning and that the units who could summon were not appropriately priced.
All of this, effectively. Not to mention that most Psykers only have 2 wounds, non-Daemon Psykers Perils on any double, Perils has a 2 in 3 chance of a wound (with several results either forcing ld checks to disable powers, Warp charge, or kill the Psyker outright), summoning in a crowded table was suicide if you weren't Battle Brothers with Daemons and didn't have access to Icons or Cursed Earth...
...it's this same mindset that led to people complaining that Lash was OP in 5th mechhammer, when Chaos struggled to cram whatever AT in that it could.
And yet somehow.. They still managed to dominate the top tables at tournaments no matter where they go unlike 5th edition CSM.. And then they competed with Barkstar or Superfriends which added a ton of Librarians with Conclave/Runepriests.. And of course CAD Eldar.
Asura Varuna wrote: I don't understand how people seem to overlook the fact that Summoning ISN'T ACTUALLY FREE. Have people never heard of opportunity cost? To be able to summon units you have to invest points into units with those abilities. With the new summoning rules, you basically pay twice for the units you want to summon in game - first when you pick the psyker who'll summon them, because his cost includes the cost of his powers, and then a second time when you choose to use summoning over making use of his other offensive/utility spells. And you risk having those psykers destroyed and preventing you making effective use of your summoning points. The issue however, was that summoning allowed you to double dip into more summoning and that the units who could summon were not appropriately priced.
All of this, effectively. Not to mention that most Psykers only have 2 wounds, non-Daemon Psykers Perils on any double, Perils has a 2 in 3 chance of a wound (with several results either forcing ld checks to disable powers, Warp charge, or kill the Psyker outright), summoning in a crowded table was suicide if you weren't Battle Brothers with Daemons and didn't have access to Icons or Cursed Earth...
...it's this same mindset that led to people complaining that Lash was OP in 5th mechhammer, when Chaos struggled to cram whatever AT in that it could.
And yet somehow.. They still managed to dominate the top tables at tournaments no matter where they go unlike 5th edition CSM.. And then they competed with Barkstar or Superfriends which added a ton of Librarians with Conclave/Runepriests.. And of course CAD Eldar.
If you look at Nanivati's Adepticon builds, he generally avoided using Summons, over going for buff-stacking via the Grimoire, Locus of Fecundity, etc. His Magnus build was shortly after WoM (there's usually a grace period for a new army to do well in events, because most 40k players are fairly dense when it comes to facing new foes) and ran Masque&Magnus. The best Daemon list this year at ITC was a Screamerstar serving as a mobile wall for an Ordnance Tyrant list...
...really, none of this actually deals with Summoning itself being a reason for Daemons doing well.
Gloomfang wrote: Not to drag this into the demon topic, but it applies I think as we are still talking about psykers and summoning.
A tervifex had 3 powers, you swapped it for biomancy to try and get iron arm, endurence and warp speed in some combination. You also crushing claws for the extra D3 attacks. As the powers were generally self targeting you rarely could stop them from going off. Smash at the time only cost them one attack and then you added all the extra attacks at the much higher strength it was 4 to 6 attacks on a charge and HoW. They wrecked tanks and anything else in thier path and punched WAY above points cost.
Demons are currently in the same position. Undercosted units that produce free units that get some wargear or othet buffs that were never considered when they were created. Then the unit got spammed.
Demons are getting the correction now. I hope it isn't as bad as it was for Nids.
sure not a 5th edition tervi, considering in 5th edition those power didn't exist. then tyr lost access to bio so no way to use those kind of powers
My hope for Daemons is that they have a combination of the 'good parts' of their last 2 codices.
I liked the 5th ed codex because you had a bit more control over what you got and the Daemons felt menacing. The 6th ed codex was nice in that you could build a proper horde.
Hopefully 8E Daemon lists can have tons of wounds (whether that be in lots of single wound models or over several multi-wound models).
I am actually excited about the idea that many models will get set powers. Random was fun for a while, but got old fast and severely limited playstyle if you wanted to avoid it.
Galef wrote: My hope for Daemons is that they have a combination of the 'good parts' of their last 2 codices.
I liked the 5th ed codex because you had a bit more control over what you got and the Daemons felt menacing. The 6th ed codex was nice in that you could build a proper horde.
Hopefully 8E Daemon lists can have tons of wounds (whether that be in lots of single wound models or over several multi-wound models).
I am actually excited about the idea that many models will get set powers. Random was fun for a while, but got old fast and severely limited playstyle if you wanted to avoid it.
-
hope they just strip off all that random stuff in demon codex and we are fine.
Agreed. The main rule provide enough random. Armies should be designed to mitigate that randomness, not add to it.
The 5E Daemon codex had very little random to it. I suspect the 8E Daemons to be more similar to that.
The only difference will likely be that Daemons will be less 'elite' than 5E where units were tougher but more expensive. 8E Daemons are likely to be cheaper and more plentiful like the 7E Daemons.
Who else is stoked about Daemon Princes not being targetable? That is if they stay characters and less than 10 wounds (both seem likely to me)
The 5E Daemon codex had very little random to it. I suspect the 8E Daemons to be more similar to that.
Aside from half your army being available to deepstrike on the beginning die roll.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Probably because I built my lists with either 2 of everything and split the list in half so the roll didn't matter, or had 2 distinct halves that spammed the same kinds of threat.
Not having random wargear/rewards and no Warp Storm would be enough to make them more like 5E. My fingers are still crossed to 3 wound FleshHounds and Screamers, and 2 wound Seekers
The 5E Daemon codex had very little random to it. I suspect the 8E Daemons to be more similar to that.
Aside from half your army being available to deepstrike on the beginning die roll.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Probably because I built my lists with either 2 of everything and split the list in half so the roll didn't matter, or had 2 distinct halves that spammed the same kinds of threat.
Not having random wargear/rewards and no Warp Storm would be enough to make them more like 5E.
My fingers are still crossed to 3 wound FleshHounds and Screamers, and 2 wound Seekers
-
the fact now you can assault after DS can be a great add to our codex with so many cac specialists.
Galef wrote: It remains to be seen if some units get charge re-roll like 7E Fleet. If that exists, than super melee Daemons is a very viable 8E list.
some units like demonettes for example will have sure a bonus for charge, btw some characters sure will give bonus just looking at AoS and that is clear.
Galef wrote: I just hope there is a distinct difference between Pinks and Blues besided -1S & T. With the new To-Wound chart and being able to always wound on 6, I really don't see any point in taking Pinks over equal points of Blues/Brims.
Maybe each level casts its power more easily? Or does more damage?
And if the current points proportion between all 3 horrors is roughly the same, I could easily see players taking units of 10 Blues and 10 Brims instead of 10 Pinks. You would get more out of them that way as Brims are really cheap (and thus less risky to leave in your reserve points) and with no Instant Death this edition, Brims seem twice as durable as they were in 7th.
-
You're forgetting about morale and t1-2. Bolters will kill way more t1 and t2 models.
As for summoning vs deepstrike. It's hinted that you can charge from deepstrike but can't place the squad closer than 9". Nothing about summoning. So, it might be possible to summon a squad closer to the enemy and emidiately charge in. That's a huge thing worth the extra hassle with paying points and going through a more dangerous process of casting a spell. Another thing to consider is that you will likely not get forced to summon something you don't want to summon this turn. Whereas you must deepstrike half the reserved squads.
Galef wrote: I just hope there is a distinct difference between Pinks and Blues besided -1S & T. With the new To-Wound chart and being able to always wound on 6, I really don't see any point in taking Pinks over equal points of Blues/Brims.
Maybe each level casts its power more easily? Or does more damage?
And if the current points proportion between all 3 horrors is roughly the same, I could easily see players taking units of 10 Blues and 10 Brims instead of 10 Pinks. You would get more out of them that way as Brims are really cheap (and thus less risky to leave in your reserve points) and with no Instant Death this edition, Brims seem twice as durable as they were in 7th.
-
You're forgetting about morale and t1-2. Bolters will kill way more t1 and t2 models.
As for summoning vs deepstrike. It's hinted that you can charge from deepstrike but can't place the squad closer than 9". Nothing about summoning. So, it might be possible to summon a squad closer to the enemy and emidiately charge in. That's a huge thing worth the extra hassle with paying points and going through a more dangerous process of casting a spell. Another thing to consider is that you will likely not get forced to summon something you don't want to summon this turn. Whereas you must deepstrike half the reserved squads.
If both those things happen it would be great i think, Right now i think GW needs to put the basic rules out for everyone to see. SO these teasers mean something more to the discussion, would help them also in case they are still working on things for the factions themselves.
I'm gonna go sit down now 
