VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...
I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.
The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).
Insularum wrote: This is going to be annoying for everyone, but incredibly so for players of factions with few units to choose from.
Just had a go at mocking up a World Eaters list to 2k, seems like it's just a case of spamming enhancements to round the list off as there are no incremental small cost units.
Yeah I was worried about this, they got rid of PL but are taking the same concept to points by making wargear free and buying units in chunks. WE and other smaller half-finished codexes have
this the hardest since there's so few units to work with.
Gojiratoho wrote: Making the unit upgrades free and having squad sizes priced out in increments is likely at least partly influenced by streamlining their upcoming army builder app.
if their army builder app cant handle weapons costs, its a gak app.
I mean, their last one was, so I can only imagine their new one will be as well.
Can't wait to see how much the new app costs (It requires a Warhammer+ subscription )
Tsagualsa wrote: It will lead to community/tournament points lists, right? Right now, this is basically unplayable on a competitive level, and if GW won't provide, somebody (i.e. somebody not part of their 'World Championship' programme) is going to set a points standard?
I don't think that is true. It could be playable, but you'll NEED those upgrades on your models.
At tournaments, every unit will just end up looking the same equipment-wise; maximum/best wargear options possible. Non-tournament games will attempt to follow suit, with "hardcore" players with more money and time converting their models to the latest "all the best gear" paradigm. Players like myself who have built up armies over the years and have no desire to reconvert/add wargear options to older models will likely just not play.
People saying "this is just like AOS" don't seem to understand that any unit options in AOS are side-grades; very rarely is one option significantly better than another (and many units do not have any options). Despite what the devs say, weapon/wargear options in 40k are typically not side-grades, and one or more options are always better than other options (ex. plasma vs. bolt pistols; power swords vs. chainswords).
Laziness, ineptitude, or whatever, this is definitely a half-assed attempt to bring 40k in line with AOS, but without any real work to make "options" on par with others, let alone allowing for a bare-bones unit with no options taken to remain competitive. So much for building "your dudes" as you see fit, as the game now pushes you to use every option included in the box kit. But even then, some units' rules (ex. Scourges) go against this "what's in the box" mentality and allow you to take four of a single weapon type when only one weapon of each weapon type is included in the box. Inconsistency makes for bad gaming.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...
I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.
The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).
And then they go and do... this!
And the missions seem like they'll be good? No idea though. Gonna try them tonight. Wasn't the GT pack supposed to come today, too?
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally....
Neutral is an understatement.
I went from the usual kind of excitement for a new edition to come out to a sense of hate about what they've done.
Not because it directly detracts something from me (I can keep playing older editions, like 9th), but because I know it will take months or years before they reverse this idiotic decision.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally....
have found if you print the cost sheets off you can peal off the bit where it says "points" and find under it there is scribbled out writing saying "power level"
Did you miss that the Vindi has higher toughness, a better save, and can fire its gun while in melee, AT the victims it is in melee with?
I did miss the save. Preds can fire in melee as well, and the toughness value will almost never matter. I can't think of a single weapon offhand that has a S11, and S10 is fairly rare due to the way they 'boosted' AT weapons to compensate for vehicle toughness.. Against S9 or S12 (most AT weapons) they're exactly the same.
It does have a good gun. I'm just not sure its worth 150% of a predator, or ~140% more than gladiators.
So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Daedalus81 wrote: And the missions seem like they'll be good? No idea though. Gonna try them tonight. Wasn't the GT pack supposed to come today, too?
You mean, like the card deck? Yeah, I'm looking forward to that. I have both the 8th and 9th Open War, and the 9th Tempest of War decks. They're great! I love how dynamic they make the game.
But these points... no, sorry, I'm not calling them that anymore. They're Power Level 2.0. That's all they are. Bad word time: They're as slowed as Power Level was originally, only now they're trying to piss on our collective legs and tell us it's raining. Gaslighting us into thinking they're doing us a favour by making the game easier because "points" have been revised.
Now.... I don't actually play very often, and I *love* crapping on GW.....
However, not that anyone will listen, try to keep in mind that all this stuff is just the free crap to get everyone on the table a.s.a.p. in the new edition.
There is hope, not much, but some hope that things will get levelled out over the edition. Although who knows how long that will be, lol
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally....
Neutral is an understatement.
I went from the usual kind of excitement for a new edition to come out to a sense of hate about what they've done.
Not because it directly detracts something from me (I can keep playing older editions, like 9th), but because I know it will take months or years before they reverse this idiotic decision.
Same. Thought I might be able to go back to getting regular games in, as people don't want to try anything not GW (as per usual). Some of the baffling things I could cope with, my armies are big enough already that some "what's in the box" things might not affect me as much as someone else, but the free upgrades, the datasheets clearly written by someone that has no grasp on the rules and the utterly idiotic attempt to pass these off as point for what is supposed to be the top dog wargame out there? No way Jose.
Hopefully this'll cause an exodus to OPR locally as this is just GW serving up a gak sandwich and telling you to eat it.
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Points will be handled separately from dexes. I would not count on this at all.
People saying "this is just like AOS" don't seem to understand that any unit options in AOS are side-grades; very rarely is one option significantly better than another (and many units do not have any options). Despite what the devs say, weapon/wargear options in 40k are typically not side-grades, and one or more options are always better than other options (ex. plasma vs. bolt pistols; power swords vs. chainswords)..
Not to excuse all this, and for ranged weapons its true, but even the non-consolidated melee weapons are actually closer to being sidegrades now. Even when they aren't, power swords aren't winning that run-off.
TalonZahn wrote: However, not that anyone will listen, try to keep in mind that all this stuff is just the free crap to get everyone on the table a.s.a.p. in the new edition.
I'd love to believe you, but they did just give us a whole article talking about how this new system is so much better and makes things easier for everyone. That makes me think that the first Codex hitting isn't going to be "Lolz, sorry, but really things are back to the way they were!".
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Points will be handled separately from dexes. I would not count on this at all.
Seriously. 'It will be different with codexes' needs to stop. This is the game now and going forward.
TalonZahn wrote: However, not that anyone will listen, try to keep in mind that all this stuff is just the free crap to get everyone on the table a.s.a.p. in the new edition.
I'd love to believe you, but they did just give us a whole article talking about how this new system is so much better and makes things easier for everyone. That makes me think that the first Codex hitting isn't going to be "Lolz, sorry, but really things are back to the way they were!".
I know, because hope is the first step to disappointment, lol!
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Points will be handled separately from dexes. I would not count on this at all.
Seriously. 'It will be different with codexes' needs to stop. This is the game now and going forward.
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Meh. I see no issue with "wargear being free", since it's basically always been "take the best and call it a day" whenever reading lists built around here.
Personally? I'm okay with the points. It feels like an attempt has been made to match more or less with AoS, where someone can reasonably field a wide selection of stuff without having to force it at 3k points or whatever.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...
I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.
The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).
And then they go and do... this!
It's a good core with a horrible design philosophy. My hope is they either go further and simply units to the point of generic SHOOT and STAB profiles totally divorced from equipment (like the last version of apocalypse) or preferably that they take this nice core and drop late-3rd ed philosophy unit/weapons/points onto it.
My fear is that units are going to remain just as inconsistent but the point lists are updated to read like this:
Tactical squad with flamer and lascannon: 200pts
Tactical squad with flamer and plasma cannon: 205pts
Tactical squad with flamer and missile launcher: 265pts
Tactical squad with flamer and missile launcher on Tuesday, if including at least one INQUISITOR model in your army painted BLUE (because JEFFBRO_45 rolled all 6s in that last tournament on Tuesday and he had an Inquisitor painted blue): 268pts
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Points will be handled separately from dexes. I would not count on this at all.
Correct. I just wasn't clear. I'm hopeful we'll get a Munitorum Field Manual v2.0 when codexes start coming, but it may be wishful thinking.
They honestly can't wait that long. The philosophy is gonna stay, and we can't do anything about that, but some of these points are just _wrong_.
Melee tyranid warriors are more expensive than ranged warriors. Some things are better but cost the same as similar units (in the same codex even), other things are just way outside the boundaries set by everything else.
They've gotta do damage control way before autumn.
My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.
This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?
(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)
“The points cost of a unit’s weapons and wargear are now incorporated into the cost of that unit – there’s no longer any need to count up all the individual weapon loadouts and do a bunch of arithmetic just to determine the total points cost of one individual unit. This makes mustering an army much simpler, and much quicker. It also frees people to make the units they’ve always wanted to, using all the coolest bits found on the kits without having to worry about spiralling points costs."
This reads like the sort of thing which would be 'pitched' to executives who don't actually play the game and so would see it only as positive and that Mr C***dace has done wonders by simplifying the game and allowing the hobbyists to indulge their desire for cool stuff on their models without worrying! The hobbyists will be free to spend more money on more kits! Win-win!
Meanwhile we who actually play the game know it doesn't work like that and can immediately see what a terrible awful idea it is in 40k (granted it may work better in AoS).
Very disappointing. Will take a lot of getting used to!
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Meh. I see no issue with "wargear being free", since it's basically always been "take the best and call it a day" whenever reading lists built around here.
Personally? I'm okay with the points. It feels like an attempt has been made to match more or less with AoS, where someone can reasonably field a wide selection of stuff without having to force it at 3k points or whatever.
This approach could have been improved by orders of magnitude if at least some upgrades, especially squad-level heavy weapons, had just '+10 pts each' tacked onto it. Nobody was expecting perfect balance, but at least acknowledge that e.g. a flamer and a plasma gun have vastly different average usefulness, and an additional Lascannon over a bolter is worth something.
MinscS2 wrote: My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.
This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?
(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)
Those point difference make sense to me. Fexes are softer. Allowing variable size units messes with what upgrades can be taken and makes it harder to balance. Whether or not they'll balance it well remains to be seen.
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Points will be handled separately from dexes. I would not count on this at all.
Correct. I just wasn't clear. I'm hopeful we'll get a Munitorum Field Manual v2.0 when codexes start coming, but it may be wishful thinking.
They honestly can't wait that long. The philosophy is gonna stay, and we can't do anything about that, but some of these points are just _wrong_.
Melee tyranid warriors are more expensive than ranged warriors. Some things are better but cost the same as similar units (in the same codex even), other things are just way outside the boundaries set by everything else.
They've gotta do damage control way before autumn.
Tacoma Open, on the 14th of July, is the first 'Grand Tournament' style event with a GW presence, part of the World Series or whatever they call it, using all rules published until July 7th, so full 10th edition rules. That is gonna be wild.
Tsagualsa wrote: This approach could have been improved by orders of magnitude if at least some upgrades, especially squad-level heavy weapons, had just '+10 pts each' tacked onto it. Nobody was expecting perfect balance, but at least acknowledge that e.g. a flamer and a plasma gun have vastly different average usefulness, and an additional Lascannon over a bolter is worth something.
I actually think they brought plasma down pretty well. The Hazardous rule being something that happens after and you can't avoid it with rerolls makes it a whole lot more risky. And then Overwatch being more flexible benefits flamers in some squads. There's still a difference, but I wouldn't put flamers down yet.
They made it so that there is no reason not to upgrade a Commissar with a plasma pistol. Literally you are wrong if you equip them with a bolt pistol.
This is the perfect microcosm of these points costs. Sacrifice one of the most iconic weapon/character combos in the setting on the atlar of simplification.
It occurs to me that since I'm going to do Genestealer cult for the obligatory "try it with an open mind" game, and my genestealer cult is all weird converted proxies, the whole max options thing doesn't really affect me. "This fire hose is the free Mining laser I'd be an idiot not to add to this unit. Really."
Automatically Appended Next Post: It could also be that this is the end of WSYWIG.
Trickstick wrote: They made it so that there is no reason not to upgrade a Commissar with a plasma pistol. Literally you are wrong if you equip them with a bolt pistol.
This is the perfect microcosm of these points costs. Sacrifice one of the most iconic weapon/character combos in the setting on the atlar of simplification.
Yes, it's silly. Though I don't think he was doing much with that pistol in the past regardless. There are parts of this that never mattered and now we don't have to sweat those details.
I look at my Rubric Flamers and I see a real distinction. They're worse than bolters with less access to upgrades, but they're great on overwatch and with Ahriman. Any of those options are the same cost and I can just pick the tool I need rather than stressing costs. That's a much newer unit than some of the older and more abused ones though.
Daedalus81 wrote: Allowing variable size units messes with what upgrades can be taken and makes it harder to balance.
Oh come off it. Variable squad sizes have been written into the DNA of this game since inception.
I'm just giving the potential logic for the decision. This stuff is what I didn't like about Warmahordes. At the same time I can still customize squads unlike WMH.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kestral wrote: It could also be that this is the end of WSYWIG.
Not really, because units aren't dying together all the time so at some point you need to pull that heavy weapon off the table.
Pretty strong 1st Edition AoS vibes coming from the new point system paradigm. Not quite as bad, obviously, but possibly dictated by the same marketing goals.
GW is likely still chasing the wide market appeal they've seen WotC achieve when MtG went from a complex spell based game to a significantly less complex midrange fat body slugfest, though I do wonder if they're going to face pushback similar to what we've seen with AoS, now that they've built a number of alternatives for the possibly disenfranchised 40k players within their own ecosystem.
oni wrote: So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.
I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.
Points will be handled separately from dexes. I would not count on this at all.
Correct. I just wasn't clear. I'm hopeful we'll get a Munitorum Field Manual v2.0 when codexes start coming, but it may be wishful thinking.
They honestly can't wait that long. The philosophy is gonna stay, and we can't do anything about that, but some of these points are just _wrong_.
Melee tyranid warriors are more expensive than ranged warriors. Some things are better but cost the same as similar units (in the same codex even), other things are just way outside the boundaries set by everything else.
They've gotta do damage control way before autumn.
It's not so much the weapons lacking points costs; I can somewhat agree with the WarCom article about "every weapon option has a role to distinguish it from competing choices" / 'the right tool for the right job' so to speak, so long as it's ingrained into the design and consistent throughout. What bothers me the most is the 'optional' wargear items that grant unit enhancements not having a cost associated with them. Detachment enhancements have a cost, so why not 'optional' wargear that grant unit enhancements (e.g AdMech Broad spectrum data-tether, SM Storm Shields, Necron Resurrection Orb, etc.)?
MinscS2 wrote: My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.
This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?
(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)
This system works fine in AoS. Honestly no one who plays AoS complains that it is harder to make lists. The other thing, which is a white elephant that no one wants to admit, making people stick to fixed unit sizes means you have to make meaningful choices. It means that if you want more eradicators in a unit you must have 3 more, instead of sneaking in just one. You, as a player, actually have to make a choice. I don't know how many time in AoS I had to make a meaningful choice between units because I couldn't just slide 1 or 2 models around.
Now, to be fair, the system could have been "for a block of X pay Y", but since some of the boxes are weird and allow you to make units out of regular troops we have this system.
It's not so much the weapons lacking points costs; I can somewhat agree with the WarCom article about "every weapon option has a role to distinguish it from competing choices" / 'the right tool for the right job' so to speak, so long as it's ingrained into the design and consistent throughout. What bothers me the most is the 'optional' wargear items that grant unit enhancements not having a cost associated with them. Detachment enhancements have a cost, so why not 'optional' wargear that grant unit enhancements (e.g AdMech Broad spectrum data-tether, SM Storm Shields, Necron Resurrection Orb, etc.)?
The honest answer to that? People took like 5% of all the unit enhancements. Even Jarvis conceded that point and explained it as the reason why a lot of unit upgrades became stratagems instead of actual items. People were basically shunning a great deal of the cool plastic in the box in favor of what works and what's hot on the table. Those enhancements were in majority useless stuff people wouldn't even pay points for. So if people are unwilling to pay points for it then why should they cost points? There was no magical perfect scenario people had for many items, and there probably wouldn't be unless some insane rule was created for the item. Now it's all a wash. All equal in the eyes of the point god.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, it's silly. Though I don't think he was doing much with that pistol in the past regardless. There are parts of this that never mattered and now we don't have to sweat those details.
I'd rather have "commissar pistol weapon" than this nonsense.
There’s also something which has been bothering me for some time: A number of units and datacards just don’t have model photos, or use generic images. As a company with a 3-billion dollar market cap, I’d like to formally invite Games Workshop to have someone paint a Death Guard Rhino or a Thousand Sons Maulerfiend. It’s pretty crazy this is still an issue.
I've long wondered if part of the reason this happens is simply them wanting to wait for a dedicated kit? I noticed this with the Tank Commander and Infantry Squad in the Guard setup.
Those point difference make sense to me. Fexes are softer.
Mostly comparing the Carnifex to the regular Dread here: same statline but a 40 point difference. No way the Dreads special rule is worth 40 points over the Carnifex' special rule.
(And the Haruspex just seems very underpriced in general, but there seem to be quite a few outliers, both in terms of being underpriced and overpriced.)
Edit: Tyranid Warriors are also weird as heck. Not only is the melee-version absurdly more expensive than the shooty-version, why would you take the melee-version to begin with when Tyrant Guard are almost the exact same cost?
I have only read trough a handful of the factions but already seen a fair amount of glaring "huh?"s.
MinscS2 wrote: My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.
This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?
(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)
This system works fine in AoS. Honestly no one who plays AoS complains that it is harder to make lists. The other thing, which is a white elephant that no one wants to admit, making people stick to fixed unit sizes means you have to make meaningful choices. It means that if you want more eradicators in a unit you must have 3 more, instead of sneaking in just one. You, as a player, actually have to make a choice. I don't know how many time in AoS I had to make a meaningful choice between units because I couldn't just slide 1 or 2 models around.
Now, to be fair, the system could have been "for a block of X pay Y", but since some of the boxes are weird and allow you to make units out of regular troops we have this system.
I'll preface this with perhaps I have missed something saying players can field understrength units. In which case, whoops. Ignore. But otherwise...
Unit size is a bigger issue for 40k because of Transports. That's not an issue that pops up anywhere near as often in AOS. While they have increased a number of Transport's capacities to accommodate characters, that doesn't solve all of the problems. I hate to say it, but this is one aspect where Power was superior, as it was usually (always?) worded in a way that allowed a unit of 5 models for X or 6 to 10 for 2X. I could (in principle) accept GW justifying making players pay for 1-3 non-existent members as the cost of the unit being much more effective in a transport than on foot. Additionally, there are characters built from boxes like we see with Custodes and Harlequins. To keep to their design philosophy, they've had to accommodate them in a very awkward manner, which leaves out anyone else who so much as thinks of converting a Lieutenant from an Intercessor or a Succubus from Wych. Can't just run those units as one model short anymore because you've used that body elsewhere. That's an issue AoS shares.
MinscS2 wrote: My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.
This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?
(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)
This system works fine in AoS. Honestly no one who plays AoS complains that it is harder to make lists. The other thing, which is a white elephant that no one wants to admit, making people stick to fixed unit sizes means you have to make meaningful choices. It means that if you want more eradicators in a unit you must have 3 more, instead of sneaking in just one. You, as a player, actually have to make a choice. I don't know how many time in AoS I had to make a meaningful choice between units because I couldn't just slide 1 or 2 models around.
Now, to be fair, the system could have been "for a block of X pay Y", but since some of the boxes are weird and allow you to make units out of regular troops we have this system.
I'll preface this with perhaps I have missed something saying players can field understrength units. In which case, whoops. Ignore. But otherwise...
Unit size is a bigger issue for 40k because of Transports. That's not an issue that pops up anywhere near as often in AOS. While they have increased a number of Transport's capacities to accommodate characters, that doesn't solve all of the problems. I hate to say it, but this is one aspect where Power was superior, as it was usually (always?) worded in a way that allowed a unit of 5 models for X or 6 to 10 for 2X. I could (in principle) accept GW justifying making players pay for 1-3 non-existent members as the cost of the unit being much more effective in a transport than on foot. Additionally, there are characters built from boxes like we see with Custodes and Harlequins. To keep to their design philosophy, they've had to accommodate them in a very awkward manner, which leaves out anyone else who so much as thinks of converting a Lieutenant from an Intercessor or a Succubus from Wych. Can't just run those units as one model short anymore because you've used that body elsewhere. That's an issue AoS shares.
I agree on the converting side, although I have always found I had more wyches I ever needed because of the ones on the Venom. Same goes for all the Kabalites on the Raider, but I understand your point. It is, however, a niche case which I imagine GW was willing to sacrifice. I will, however, admit that I would have wanted kabalites to come in blocks of 5 and then max at 10, but the design gods are sometimes fickle.
Regarding transport I imagine that will be a thing that will see changes throughout the life cycle. They did try, however, to address it with the combat squading rules that follow the vehicles.
I also could imagine that Custodes and Harlequins will eventually see single sprue leaders released and the squad goes into more logical squad sizing. Only time will tell I guess. Personally I find it awkward and I have Custodes and Harlies. Hated getting a box and having to sacrifice a whole model to make a character. Usually meant I needed more boxes.
Those point difference make sense to me. Fexes are softer.
Mostly comparing the Carnifex to the regular Dread here: same statline but a 40 point difference. No way the Dreads special rule is worth 40 points over the Carnifex' special rule.
(And the Haruspex just seems very underpriced in general, but there seem to be quite a few outliers, both in terms of being underpriced and overpriced.)
Edit: Tyranid Warriors are also weird as heck. Not only is the melee-version absurdly more expensive than the shooty-version, why would you take the melee-version to begin with when Tyrant Guard are almost the exact same cost?
I have only read trough a handful of the factions but already seen a fair amount of glaring "huh?"s.
They're not perfect by any stretch. There's also faction considerations like Oath. The dread can also tank shock and smoke and I would place the reroll aura as more powerful than blistering assault.
Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?
It's simple. We play games and try out the new ruleset. See what works, what's cool, what's stupid, and so on and so on.
Welcome to the Wild West.
From the outside looking in, looks like GW is using the user community as their ongoing beta test. Giving me very strong Privateer Press, Mk3 Warmachine vibes.
Boosykes wrote: Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?
The long and short of it is: Fixed squad sizes for most units, or increments of *Multiples of Boxes*, and all Upgrades/Equipment are free. Draw your own conclusions.
I find the different community interactions very interesting to watch:
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
Reddit: Kind of mellow. Adaptable. Nothing really negative except maybe some point comparisons between different factions. All excited to play. They are really weirded out by everything being free but adapting.
Twitter: AoS players actually excited about playing 40k. "Sounds like my type of game" type of energy.
I'm not upset about everything getting free wargear.
But the fixed unit sizes are annoying.
I have 6 Dire Avengers. I now have to either pay the cost for 10, or shelf the 6th model.
That's just one of MANY examples of model sizes I and my son own that are more than the box size, but less than the size of 2 boxes.
It would have been super easy for GW to price extra models separately.
5 Dire Avengers- 70pts
+1-5 additional Dire Avengers- +13pts per model
Eldarsif wrote: I find the different community interactions very interesting to watch:
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
Reddit: Kind of mellow. Adaptable. Nothing really negative except maybe some point comparisons between different factions. All excited to play. They are really weirded out by everything being free but adapting.
Twitter: AoS players actually excited about playing 40k. "Sounds like my type of game" type of energy.
The 40k subreddit is garbage. They defended the new iteration of RP for Necrons.
They're as bad as the people on the official Facebook.
Eldarsif wrote: I find the different community interactions very interesting to watch:
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
Reddit: Kind of mellow. Adaptable. Nothing really negative except maybe some point comparisons between different factions. All excited to play. They are really weirded out by everything being free but adapting.
Twitter: AoS players actually excited about playing 40k. "Sounds like my type of game" type of energy.
Yeah, Dakkadakka reminds me of the Bungie/Destiny forums that turn toxic at every change…
GW hints at something new
Dakkites get excited
GW reveals
Dakkites become Debbie Downers & overreact
GW releases
Dakkites still stay in in hobby they cry about even after threats of leaving the hibby
Rinse & repeat
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
I have not seen anyone trash binning or selling their armies. Its playable. But being playable doesn't mean its balanced. Dumbing it down in one way, then making it ridiculously more complex in another way seems counter-intuitive. Charging no points for some upgrades, then points for other upgrades many of which seem less impactful on the game is also counter-intuitive.
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
I have not seen anyone trash binning or selling their armies. Its playable. But being playable doesn't mean its balanced. Dumbing it down in one way, then making it ridiculously more complex in another way seems counter-intuitive. Charging no points for some upgrades, then points for other upgrades many of which seem less impactful on the game is also counter-intuitive.
I called it unplayable, but specifically in the context of competitive play at Grand Tournaments.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, it's silly. Though I don't think he was doing much with that pistol in the past regardless. There are parts of this that never mattered and now we don't have to sweat those details.
I'd rather have "commissar pistol weapon" than this nonsense.
It would seem more logical if you make hugely different weapons cost the same - why bother having the much weaker ones - better off with a single profile and as you say call it "Unit" Pistol weapon
Galef wrote: I'm not upset about everything getting free wargear.
But the fixed unit sizes are annoying.
I have 6 Dire Avengers. I now have to either pay the cost for 10, or shelf the 6th model.
That's just one of MANY examples of model sizes I and my son own that are more than the box size, but less than the size of 2 boxes.
It would have been super easy for GW to price extra models separately.
5 Dire Avengers- 70pts
+1-5 additional Dire Avengers- +13pts per model
How hard was that?
-
I hear you and get what you are saying.
I'm an oldie in the game too, but I actually find the fixed unit sizes a relief. They are flexible enough that one can play most common sizes anyway, and it makes it more streamlined to calculate in your head if one unit can mathematically beat another if they get the charge.
For once, the game has become less clunky and in this regard plays more like a 2000s game rather than a 90s game.
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
Careful, your strawmen might catch a spark from the dumpster fire
As far as i'm aware, nobody here said anything about selling or trashing their army (yet).
Also, it's almost as is Dakka is the only one of those that is conducive to the methods of free speech. On Reddit, rarely will people give their true opinions (particularly on the GW focussed subs) as they'll just get downvoted into oblivion due to the nature of the platform. Twitter, not enough text to give a proper view and suffers from a lot of the problems Reddit does WRT shouting people down. Facebook as well will shut down any discussions that the mods deem to be "not positive".
Forums of all types are where you should be looking at for the true opinion of this trash heap by a bunch of supposed professionals. Cause I can say that here and not get censored by other users that don't like my opinion. Good, innit?
Galef wrote: I'm not upset about everything getting free wargear.
But the fixed unit sizes are annoying.
I have 6 Dire Avengers. I now have to either pay the cost for 10, or shelf the 6th model.
That's just one of MANY examples of model sizes I and my son own that are more than the box size, but less than the size of 2 boxes.
It would have been super easy for GW to price extra models separately.
5 Dire Avengers- 70pts
+1-5 additional Dire Avengers- +13pts per model
How hard was that?
-
I hear you and get what you are saying.
I'm an oldie in the game too, but I actually find the fixed unit sizes a relief. They are flexible enough that one can play most common sizes anyway, and it makes it more streamlined to calculate in your head if one unit can mathematically beat another if they get the charge.
For once, the game has become less clunky and in this regard plays more like a 2000s game rather than a 90s game.
GW has made games with fixed 'unit' sizes in the past that worked well (like various iterations of epic, for example), but this is not it. Fixed unit sizes are not a huge problem per se, but it feels somewhat disconnected from the fluff and done carelessly in the presentation we are offered right now. It would have literally cost them nothing, for example, to allow Combat-Squading for SM, or throw in an intermediate step between 5 and 10, for example the various god's sacred numbers, for CSM simply for fluff reasons. At the moment, i'm most interested in how the Combat Patrol mode will differ from what we have seen so far, but i don't think it will bring vast changes. Overall, i'm mostly annoyed because the doomsayers seem to have been correct about the gist of what was coming, and because i don't understand a lot of the design decisions that went into this edition, or worse, find the offered reasons and explanations cynical, untrue, and adding insult to injury.
triplegrim wrote: How much does drones cost for a crisis suit unit? I dont understand quite.
Zero. W6 4++ battlesuits if you want, but beware of the secondary.
Thanks.
Secondary what?
Since Drones does not actually work as models, but markers, and are included in the cost of the crisis suit, It does not make sense to field 36 drones with a gigantic footprint for a regular Tau army with 18 crisis suits. I am expecting to see 3d printed (tiny) drones that is just put on the base of the crisis suit. Along the lines of the new darkstryder model.
Has anyone priced out the two sides of the leviathan box yet? The consensus was that the tyranid side was underpointed. I'd like to know if that's actually true or they just overcosted the bugs.
Galef wrote: I'm not upset about everything getting free wargear.
But the fixed unit sizes are annoying.
I have 6 Dire Avengers. I now have to either pay the cost for 10, or shelf the 6th model.
That's just one of MANY examples of model sizes I and my son own that are more than the box size, but less than the size of 2 boxes.
It would have been super easy for GW to price extra models separately.
5 Dire Avengers- 70pts
+1-5 additional Dire Avengers- +13pts per model
How hard was that?
-
I hear you and get what you are saying.
I'm an oldie in the game too, but I actually find the fixed unit sizes a relief. They are flexible enough that one can play most common sizes anyway, and it makes it more streamlined to calculate in your head if one unit can mathematically beat another if they get the charge.
For once, the game has become less clunky and in this regard plays more like a 2000s game rather than a 90s game.
I can't get how the fixed unit sizes could be "a relief". You cant' fine-tune a list anymore regarding points or unit efficiency. You cant' adjust a unit size to fill the capacity of a transport anymore. You can't divide your model collection into however fits what you like. You can't buy single or odd numbers of second-hand miniatures for a squad, because you can't even field them !
Galef wrote: I'm not upset about everything getting free wargear.
But the fixed unit sizes are annoying.
I have 6 Dire Avengers. I now have to either pay the cost for 10, or shelf the 6th model.
That's just one of MANY examples of model sizes I and my son own that are more than the box size, but less than the size of 2 boxes.
It would have been super easy for GW to price extra models separately.
5 Dire Avengers- 70pts
+1-5 additional Dire Avengers- +13pts per model
How hard was that?
-
That does not promote buying more to accommodate the set sizes though! These seemingly arbitrary number sets exist purely as a way to push people into buying more from GW to match them. There is no other reasonable reason to not do points per model for units that traditionally could do so before ("but little Timmy does not want math with his toy soldiers" is honestly not a reasonable reason).
Just a quick thought on the different points on different units that are the "same" but in multiple codexs.
An example of this that I just did in building lists was TS land raider is 250 while the CSM land radier is 255. The have the same exact data sheet abilities. However, the TS faction rules and detachment rules do nothing for a land raider. The CSM ones definitely help a lot (5+ lethal hits with Tzeenth, um yes please).
Clearly this shows the price increase is based on its effectiveness in the faction. I am pretty sure there are pages and pages on this fourm discussing how not accounting for faction, chapter, legion etc. abilities in points made some units to good and others not in 9th.
So I don't understand the issue with this, and I personally think that it is good that they are looking at points not just on raw data sheet, but the role that unit can play in an army.
Oguhmek wrote: Hmm, I generally appreciate the simplifications, most options were already either must-takes or useless, so might as well just bake it into the unit cost.
Sure, there are still some crincles to iron out, I bet we'll see quite a few datacards updated in the coming months, but in overall I think it's great.
It's certainly better suited to modern-style boxes like e.g. the Desolator Squad or whatever, where you have pretty much no options and your available options are sidegrades, instead of legacy squads like the humble Tactical Squad with their variety of choices. The extreme consolidation (reduction in options) for Combi-Weapons, Deathwatch etc. is obviously a symptom of their burning need to squish everything into the powerlevel-with-free-upgrades mould.
Right, but that just means they'll use it as a retroactive justification for stripping out options and making 40K units more like AoS units: One or two builds only, where the attacks and the strength are swapped back and forth. Which is something no one wanted or asked for, but they will proceed to force on every kit from now on.
Eldarsif wrote: I find the different community interactions very interesting to watch:
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
Reddit: Kind of mellow. Adaptable. Nothing really negative except maybe some point comparisons between different factions. All excited to play. They are really weirded out by everything being free but adapting.
Twitter: AoS players actually excited about playing 40k. "Sounds like my type of game" type of energy.
I'm actually shocked by the lack of meltdown in my local groups and in competitive reddits. I'm warming to the points as I look through them. Like Illuminor got a huge glow up, but he went from 145 to 220. There's still problems, but largely on the whole it seems decent. I can still customize squads even if I'm taking all the upgrades so it's not all gone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: The 40k subreddit is garbage. They defended the new iteration of RP for Necrons.
There's two subreddits - are you referring to competitive. Also the new Necron RP seems really good...?
Eldarsif wrote: I find the different community interactions very interesting to watch:
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
Reddit: Kind of mellow. Adaptable. Nothing really negative except maybe some point comparisons between different factions. All excited to play. They are really weirded out by everything being free but adapting.
Twitter: AoS players actually excited about playing 40k. "Sounds like my type of game" type of energy.
Haha. Yeah dakkadakka didn't dissapoint.
Biggest dissapointment for me today was no scenario pack. The one in core rules rather boring. Was hoping to try the new 9e/tempest hybrid in first game.
Dakka: Meltdown. Selling armies, trash binning their armies, basically the game is unplayable and *expletives*
I have not seen anyone trash binning or selling their armies. Its playable. But being playable doesn't mean its balanced. Dumbing it down in one way, then making it ridiculously more complex in another way seems counter-intuitive. Charging no points for some upgrades, then points for other upgrades many of which seem less impactful on the game is also counter-intuitive.
I called it unplayable, but specifically in the context of competitive play at Grand Tournaments.
Well. Luckily there's never been competitive play in GW games So no change there.
Boosykes wrote: Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?
Grimtuff wrote: Also, it's almost as is Dakka is the only one of those that is conducive to the methods of free speech. On Reddit, rarely will people give their true opinions (particularly on the GW focussed subs) as they'll just get downvoted into oblivion due to the nature of the platform. Twitter, not enough text to give a proper view and suffers from a lot of the problems Reddit does WRT shouting people down. Facebook as well will shut down any discussions that the mods deem to be "not positive".
Forums of all types are where you should be looking at for the true opinion of this trash heap by a bunch of supposed professionals. Cause I can say that here and not get censored by other users that don't like my opinion. Good, innit?
The opinions on competitive reddit are usually pretty much against GW, but both sides exist. Reddit is just a terrible place to discuss things. Well, Dakka sometimes, too...
EviscerationPlague wrote: The 40k subreddit is garbage. They defended the new iteration of RP for Necrons.
There's two subreddits - are you referring to competitive. Also the new Necron RP seems really good...?
Take your pick. Last I visited was the competitive one but they're all garbage anyway.
Also RP sucks. It allows easy unit Wipeouts. You can talk about how with a Reanimator + Orb you get 10 models back over two Command Phases, but guess what? Warriors and Immortals are gonna die before that.
You wouldn't understand with your blind loyalty to GW of course, so what's new?
Games Workshop wrote:Rich from the Studio says: “Unit sizes are now much easier to manage. Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box, so you won’t need to agonise over how to include all of the models you’ve bought. It also helps to quickly understand the strength of a full squad at a glance, and makes list-building far quicker and simpler.
Games Workshop wrote:“Unit sizes are now much easier to manage. Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box, so you won’t need to agonise over how to include all of the models you’ve bought.
Games Workshop wrote:“Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... box...
*loudly clears throat*
Like, really really loudly.
It gives me Lord Business from the LEGO Movie vibes. "Build it like we told you! Don't be creative!"
Zachectomy wrote: Has anyone priced out the two sides of the leviathan box yet? The consensus was that the tyranid side was underpointed. I'd like to know if that's actually true or they just overcosted the bugs.
GW's own live-play demo game of the box set included a couple extra tyranid units. They were certainly convinced the tyranid side was worth less.
Games Workshop wrote:Rich from the Studio says: “Unit sizes are now much easier to manage. Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box, so you won’t need to agonise over how to include all of the models you’ve bought. It also helps to quickly understand the strength of a full squad at a glance, and makes list-building far quicker and simpler.
Games Workshop wrote:“Unit sizes are now much easier to manage. Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box, so you won’t need to agonise over how to include all of the models you’ve bought.
Games Workshop wrote:“Rather than adding individual models to a squad, you buy them in increments – sets of five models, 10 models, and so on. These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... These generally correlate to the quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... quantity you’ll get in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... in that unit’s box...
Games Workshop wrote:... box...
*loudly clears throat*
Like, really really loudly.
It gives me Lord Business from the LEGO Movie vibes. "Build it like we told you! Don't be creative!"
triplegrim wrote: How much does drones cost for a crisis suit unit? I dont understand quite.
Zero. W6 4++ battlesuits if you want, but beware of the secondary.
Thanks.
Secondary what?
Since Drones does not actually work as models, but markers, and are included in the cost of the crisis suit, It does not make sense to field 36 drones with a gigantic footprint for a regular Tau army with 18 crisis suits. I am expecting to see 3d printed (tiny) drones that is just put on the base of the crisis suit. Along the lines of the new darkstryder model.
Each dead battlesuit is worth 2VP. Obviously the W6 4++ is a good thing in that context - it's just taking too many of them that could make scoring very easy. TBD though.
Zachectomy wrote: Has anyone priced out the two sides of the leviathan box yet? The consensus was that the tyranid side was underpointed. I'd like to know if that's actually true or they just overcosted the bugs.
GW's own live-play demo game of the box set included a couple extra tyranid units. They were certainly convinced the tyranid side was worth less.
well with barbgaunts being as cheap as they are....
Galef wrote: I'm not upset about everything getting free wargear.
But the fixed unit sizes are annoying.
I have 6 Dire Avengers. I now have to either pay the cost for 10, or shelf the 6th model.
That's just one of MANY examples of model sizes I and my son own that are more than the box size, but less than the size of 2 boxes.
It would have been super easy for GW to price extra models separately.
5 Dire Avengers- 70pts
+1-5 additional Dire Avengers- +13pts per model
How hard was that?
-
I hear you and get what you are saying.
I'm an oldie in the game too, but I actually find the fixed unit sizes a relief. They are flexible enough that one can play most common sizes anyway, and it makes it more streamlined to calculate in your head if one unit can mathematically beat another if they get the charge.
For once, the game has become less clunky and in this regard plays more like a 2000s game rather than a 90s game.
I can't get how the fixed unit sizes could be "a relief". You cant' fine-tune a list anymore regarding points or unit efficiency. You cant' adjust a unit size to fill the capacity of a transport anymore. You can't divide your model collection into however fits what you like. You can't buy single or odd numbers of second-hand miniatures for a squad, because you can't even field them !
How is that not clunky ?
The preamble to the Field Manual mentions you can field understrength units, but you have to pay for max strength. I.e. you can field seven if you want to, but you have to pay for ten.
Each entry lists the increments to
a unit’s size that incur different points costs. This may change
with the addition of each individual model (e.g. 1 model, 2
models, 3 models, etc.) or it may be presented with a lower
and upper limit to a unit’s Starting Strength (e.g. one cost for
5 models, another cost for 10 models). In the latter case, your
units can contain a number of models in between these limits,
but you must still pay the maximum points cost for a unit
that starts the game with more than its minimum number of
models.
EviscerationPlague wrote: The 40k subreddit is garbage. They defended the new iteration of RP for Necrons.
There's two subreddits - are you referring to competitive. Also the new Necron RP seems really good...?
Take your pick. Last I visited was the competitive one but they're all garbage anyway.
Also RP sucks. It allows easy unit Wipeouts. You can talk about how with a Reanimator + Orb you get 10 models back over two Command Phases, but guess what? Warriors and Immortals are gonna die before that.
You wouldn't understand with your blind loyalty to GW of course, so what's new?
Tsagualsa wrote: Overall, i'm mostly annoyed because the doomsayers seem to have been correct about the gist of what was coming
That little scrap led to an epiphany.
Anyone else ever wonder if it seems like GW wrote the rules in the 4 hours before they reveal it because they did write it in the 4 hours before they revealed it, using the doomsaying as their guide because "well, if it's what people are talking about, it must be what they want"?
What if it's all being done by AI that doesn't understand sarcasm or negative feelings in general and is just scraping the internet for chatter to make the bestest system that will appeal to the most people? Or maybe it's a malicious actor in GW who understands but does this because they think this way we're getting the rules we deserve?
I don't care if this is true or false, I'm starting a podcast about it now. Probably the only way I'll get a copy of the next Killteam set.
EviscerationPlague wrote: The 40k subreddit is garbage. They defended the new iteration of RP for Necrons.
There's two subreddits - are you referring to competitive. Also the new Necron RP seems really good...?
Take your pick. Last I visited was the competitive one but they're all garbage anyway.
Also RP sucks. It allows easy unit Wipeouts. You can talk about how with a Reanimator + Orb you get 10 models back over two Command Phases, but guess what? Warriors and Immortals are gonna die before that.
You wouldn't understand with your blind loyalty to GW of course, so what's new?
God, you're pathetic.
I'm not the one blindly defending EVERYTHING GW does. You defended the absurd lethality from 9th after all.
OH and not to mention your blind defense that nothing is based on the box contents when we got confirmation that it is LMAO
That's because it is good, especially with all the synergies.
20 Warriors, in range of an Objective Marker, with a Lord/Res orb with the Hypermaterial Ablator and a Canpotek Reanimator in range:
-1 to be shot from Ablator
Benefit of Cover so +1 to saves from Ablator (assuming the firing squad is further than 12" away)
5-9 Warriors returned via Stratagem after an enemy unit shoots between the Warriors and Reanimators abilities (possibly 6-10 if the Character section of the strat stacks with the Warriors RP ability)
And if you wanna get spicy, throw a Technomancer in there for 5+ FNP.
Then RP on your Command Phase and the opponent's Command Phase, for 5-9 Warriors each time.
Hmmm, with fixed squads and free everything, this really is GW forcing PL on us except they're calling it "points" and pretending that we won't notice.
"5 Intercessors is 5 PL, 10 Intercessors is 10 PL. I mean, 5 Intercessors is 90 pts, 10 Intercessors is 180 pts. Clearly different!"
That's because it is good, especially with all the synergies.
20 Warriors, in range of an Objective Marker, with a Lord/Res orb with the Hypermaterial Ablator and a Canpotek Reanimator in range:
-1 to be shot from Ablator
Benefit of Cover so +1 to saves from Ablator (assuming the firing squad is further than 12" away)
5-9 Warriors returned after an enemy unit shoots between the Warriors and Reanimators abilities (possibly 6-10 if the Character section of the strat stacks with the Warriors RP ability)
And if you wanna get spicy, throw a Technomancer in there for 5+ FNP.
Then RP on your Command Phase and the opponent's Command Phase, for 5-9 Warriors each time.
RP is good in 10th.
That's not RP being good, that's character stacking being good LMAO.
tneva82 wrote: Biggest dissapointment for me today was no scenario pack. The one in core rules rather boring. Was hoping to try the new 9e/tempest hybrid in first game.
That's because it is good, especially with all the synergies.
20 Warriors, in range of an Objective Marker, with a Lord/Res orb with the Hypermaterial Ablator and a Canpotek Reanimator in range:
-1 to be shot from Ablator
Benefit of Cover so +1 to saves from Ablator (assuming the firing squad is further than 12" away)
5-9 Warriors returned via Stratagem after an enemy unit shoots between the Warriors and Reanimators abilities (possibly 6-10 if the Character section of the strat stacks with the Warriors RP ability)
And if you wanna get spicy, throw a Technomancer in there for 5+ FNP.
Then RP on your Command Phase and the opponent's Command Phase, for 5-9 Warriors each time.
RP is good in 10th.
HEY GUYS A WHITE KNIGHT! THEY THINK SOMETHING GW DID IS GOOD!
Oh they just sat and thought about it and came to their own conclusion and supported it with data? Wow that seems weird.
Tsagualsa wrote: The preamble to the Field Manual mentions you can field understrength units, but you have to pay for max strength. I.e. you can field seven if you want to, but you have to pay for ten.
Each entry lists the increments to
a unit’s size that incur different points costs. This may change
with the addition of each individual model (e.g. 1 model, 2
models, 3 models, etc.) or it may be presented with a lower
and upper limit to a unit’s Starting Strength (e.g. one cost for
5 models, another cost for 10 models). In the latter case, your
units can contain a number of models in between these limits,
but you must still pay the maximum points cost for a unit
that starts the game with more than its minimum number of
models.
Well that solves some things. I'm glad I missed it. Well, not glad I missed it, but glad that it's there. I can accept this. Thanks for pointing it out.
That's because it is good, especially with all the synergies.
20 Warriors, in range of an Objective Marker, with a Lord/Res orb with the Hypermaterial Ablator and a Canpotek Reanimator in range:
-1 to be shot from Ablator
Benefit of Cover so +1 to saves from Ablator (assuming the firing squad is further than 12" away)
5-9 Warriors returned via Stratagem after an enemy unit shoots between the Warriors and Reanimators abilities (possibly 6-10 if the Character section of the strat stacks with the Warriors RP ability)
And if you wanna get spicy, throw a Technomancer in there for 5+ FNP.
Then RP on your Command Phase and the opponent's Command Phase, for 5-9 Warriors each time.
RP is good in 10th.
HEY GUYS A WHITE KNIGHT! THEY THINK SOMETHING GW DID IS GOOD!
Oh they just sat and thought about it and came to their own conclusion and supported it with data? Wow that seems weird.
And I already pointed out that's not RP being good. You throw that many characters and buffs into a squad just to make the army passive work? Yeah, that's not functional.
After reading the Goonhammer Army Builder App review, it's all become clear why the new stats/cards/units are the way they are.
GW couldn't build an in-depth App, with thousands of options, in time for 10th. So they just made everything "simple" so the App will work and force you to sign up for Warhammer+
Zachectomy wrote: Has anyone priced out the two sides of the leviathan box yet? The consensus was that the tyranid side was underpointed. I'd like to know if that's actually true or they just overcosted the bugs.
Tyranids are 780 (not including Rippers) and Marines are 960.
That's not RP being good, that's character stacking being good LMAO.
Sorry, didn't realize you don't know how to play this game.
So these are called "synergies". A "synergy" is when two things mutually benefit one another by being combined. In this case, the Lord benefits and enhances the RP ability of the Warriors through the use of his wargear. So while that big ol' blob of 20 models is hard to hide from line of sight from your opponent, and all on it's own will likely get whittled down or eliminated before you can use RP, you can use the tools provided by Games Workshop to make a combo that greatly enhances their durability and survivability, aka, a "synergy".
Zachectomy wrote: Has anyone priced out the two sides of the leviathan box yet? The consensus was that the tyranid side was underpointed. I'd like to know if that's actually true or they just overcosted the bugs.
Tyranids are 780 (not including Rippers) and Marines are 960.
Admittedly the SK is blatantly over-costed.
Not sure about that. The screamer killer is a lot more reasonable than I thought it would be, given how good it is.
I thought it was going to be priced too close to the carnifex, making them pointless.
That's not RP being good, that's character stacking being good LMAO.
Sorry, didn't realize you don't know how to play this game.
So these are called "synergies". A "synergy" is when two things mutually benefit one another by being combined. In this case, the Lord benefits and enhances the RP ability of the Warriors through the use of his wargear. So while that big ol' blob of 20 models is hard to hide from line of sight from your opponent, and all on it's own will likely get whittled down or eliminated before you can use RP, you can use the tools provided by Games Workshop to make a combo that greatly enhances their durability and survivability, aka, a "synergy".
Hope that helps
Does RP work by itself as an army rule, yes or no? It's not synergy if something doesn't work to begin with, it's putting effort to make something work that doesn't.
Look at Skitarii Rangers. They're almost 12 points per model and you can stack several buffs on them. Are you going to say they're a good unit?
EviscerationPlague wrote: And I already pointed out that's not RP being good. You throw that many characters and buffs into a squad just to make the army passive work? Yeah, that's not functional.
You moved the goalposts so far up your own ass they're tickling your throat. That's how the friggin' game works my dude.
I never moved a goalpost. RP isn't functional as an army rule.
What about it isn't functional?
You can say it's too weak or conditional, sure, but it literally functions.
If its too weak or conditional, it's not functioning. Would you say you had transportation to a job in another city if your car went 10MPH?
EviscerationPlague wrote: And I already pointed out that's not RP being good. You throw that many characters and buffs into a squad just to make the army passive work? Yeah, that's not functional.
You moved the goalposts so far up your own ass they're tickling your throat. That's how the friggin' game works my dude.
I never moved a goalpost. RP isn't functional as an army rule.
What about it isn't functional?
You can say it's too weak or conditional, sure, but it literally functions.
If its too weak or conditional, it's not functioning. Would you say you had transportation to a job in another city if your car went 10MPH?
Yes. Set off earlier.
Yeah try that in an interview and see how that goes. I'd love to hear the results.
EviscerationPlague wrote: And I already pointed out that's not RP being good. You throw that many characters and buffs into a squad just to make the army passive work? Yeah, that's not functional.
You moved the goalposts so far up your own ass they're tickling your throat. That's how the friggin' game works my dude.
I never moved a goalpost. RP isn't functional as an army rule.
What about it isn't functional?
You can say it's too weak or conditional, sure, but it literally functions.
If its too weak or conditional, it's not functioning. Would you say you had transportation to a job in another city if your car went 10MPH?
Well we'll see when tournaments come up. I'm expecting necrons to do pretty well. And necron players are excited.
Better yet, get anew job. You're so keen to try and gak on things and other people all the time, how on earth you don't just get bored of being a negative prick is lost on me. You even admitted you a net negative hobby experience, you're breeding your own festering attitude so you can "attack" things. It's strong wording and genuinely concerning.
Or I can point out why the game is actually not great and that you shouldn't give GW another cent until they put effort into it.
EviscerationPlague wrote: And I already pointed out that's not RP being good. You throw that many characters and buffs into a squad just to make the army passive work? Yeah, that's not functional.
You moved the goalposts so far up your own ass they're tickling your throat. That's how the friggin' game works my dude.
I never moved a goalpost. RP isn't functional as an army rule.
What about it isn't functional?
You can say it's too weak or conditional, sure, but it literally functions.
If its too weak or conditional, it's not functioning. Would you say you had transportation to a job in another city if your car went 10MPH?
Well we'll see when tournaments come up. I'm expecting necrons to do pretty well. And necron players are excited.
Boosykes wrote: Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?
The long and short of it is: Fixed squad sizes for most units, or increments of *Multiples of Boxes*, and all Upgrades/Equipment are free. Draw your own conclusions.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...
I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.
The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).
And then they go and do... this!
Agreed, surprisingly. I am stunned tbh. GW set up what seems to be a solid set of core rules, and then they went and fethed it all up with some boneheaded choices with arbitrary profile consolidations, unit modifications, and stat choices.
As for points, the writing has been on the wall for a while about the power-level-ification of points, saw it coming, not bothered by it in concept if its done right - it was not done right here. The idea that a range of weapon and wargear options can all be roughly equivalent alternatives to one another, IE functional equivalents where a melta, a flamer, grenade launcher, and a plasma gun, etc. all carry equivalent level of utility to the unit and the player and thus are a wash in terms of points. 100% on board with that. The problem is that selecting those upgrades isn't really mandatory, and its obvious that they are superior to the baseline weapon that model is otherwise equipped with (i.e. bolter, lasgun, etc.). A unit of dudes with 10 bolters is different from a unit of dudes with 9 bolters and a flamer is different from a unit of dudes with 2 flamers and 2 missile launchers, etc. It would not have been too difficult for GW to simplify the points system down to:
"Unit of 5 models = X points
Unit of 10 models = 2X points
-Add up to 2 special weapons = +Y points
-Add up to 4 special weapons = +2Y points
-Add up to 2 heavy weapons = +Z points
-Add up to 4 heavy weapons = +2Z points"
Kind of thing. Its simple, and it works.I'm sure some will complain "but if I only take 1 special weapon I'm being overcharged blahblahblah". Whatever, that degree of granularity is a meme and a myth, more often than not over the course of a full game you are not seeing a meaningful difference in performance from having 2 plasma guns vs just 1. If the end result is players are incentivized to build their units to pre-defined "formats" in terms of the number of weapons they field (i.e. a given unit will almost always be fielded with either no special weapons, 2 special weapons, 2 heavy weapons, etc.), thats fine too, no reason to jump through hoops for those who want to field 1 or 3 special weapons because they came up with bespoke fluff about how the 1st Bumblegak Guards regiment worships triangles and thus fields their special weapons exclusively in groups of 3 so that they can feel closer to the great triangle in the skies pointy angle.
Likewise the flexible unit sizes thing... I dunno, never much saw the point in doing it except because you didn't have points needed to fill out a squad, but theres other ways to address that issue. To an extent theres a degree of diminishing returns when it comes to adding models to a unit, so giving that flexibility really only allows another avenue for min-maxing and optimization. I'd honestly rather just have fixed unit sizes with kicker costs for certain numbers/types of upgrades. With the exception of grognards who were around when everything was sold in individual blisters, units are sold in fixed increments, so its not like you can claim that GW is forcing you to buy extra stuff in order to field your stuff (plague marines notwithstanding). If you only have 6 dire avengers or whatever, and your options are to field them as a unit of 5 or a unit of 10 then thats on you - you bought 2 boxes of 5 avengers, if you converted the other 4 into something else thats not really GWs problem, etc.
Also, personally, to address the survivability v lethality issue with regards to vehicles, I would have just made vehicles reduce D1 to D0 and D2 to D1. That keeps your small arms from getting away from you without requiring you to inflate toughnessess and strengths to try to balance everything out.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...
I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.
The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).
And then they go and do... this!
Agreed, surprisingly. I am stunned tbh.
This is close to what 8th was originally going to be, before AoS 1.0 bombed. The frog boils slowly.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...
I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.
The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).
And then they go and do... this!
+1 to both of you. I hate to say it, but this totally halfassed approach to points has killed a lot of the enthusiasm I had for 10th.
VladimirHerzog wrote: So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...
I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.
The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).
And then they go and do... this!
+1 to both of you. I hate to say it, but this totally halfassed approach to points has killed a lot of the enthusiasm I had for 10th.
I blame this on Crusade.
Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.
Honestly this feels a lot like GW reversing from the comp play back towards enforcing a more casual game. I wonder if it's also to drive more a wedge between 40k and HH.
I think for once this might hurt their bottom line a little long term.
chaos0xomega wrote: Also, personally, to address the survivability v lethality issue with regards to vehicles, I would have just made vehicles reduce D1 to D0 and D2 to D1. That keeps your small arms from getting away from you without requiring you to inflate toughnessess and strengths to try to balance everything out.
That would have been very interesting and I think preferable to what we got. Similar to the old AV system where vehicles were essentially immune to small arms, but without requiring an entirely different method of resolving attacks. I think it would need a little tweaking, but I'd definitely give it a go.
Spoiler:
Considering army selection essentially allows pure vehicle armies that would entirely invalidate other armies made up purely of infantry with small arms, I think there needs to be something similar to the Lucky Glancing Blow from 3rd's Armoured Company rules. Maybe critical hits would ignore that damage reduction. Critical wounds seems more intuitive as that would play into the anti-vehicle rules, but I think it would be quicker and less frustrating to stop the attack at step 1 if it doesn't have a chance of causing damage. Might end up more complicated than having an entirely different system for AV, but could streamline slightly by limiting it only to D1 to eliminate splitting dice pools between attacks from the same weapon that are only doing D1 and the criticals that are doing D2, or alternatively standardizing it to applying the -1 modifier to every attack regardless of damage.
Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.
They are not.
It just blows my mind because they did this for the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and then backpedaled on it like a month after release, adding points costs to the obvious upgrades.
And that system worked- some options were just made free/basic equipment, some were consolidated, some were set up as sidegrades. Points costs were reserved for the most impactful upgrades, and tied to easy-to-work-with multiples of 5.
Then I guess they said 'haha jk' and we're back to where we were.
It's laziness. This is easier for them to write up and so they couldn't be bothered to actually create proper rules. They don't give a gak as long as people keep buying models.
Scottywan82 wrote: It's laziness. This is easier for them to write up and so they couldn't be bothered to actually create proper rules. They don't give a gak as long as people keep buying models.
It's probably a budget issue. I don't believe their rules writers are lazy, just that they are given very little time and room to work with. This looks legitimately like something that was written up in a month or two.
skeleton wrote: For us is the choise, are we going to play 10the, or do we play an older edition. for new players or compitition players there isnt that choise.
The correct choice is to just not play 40k to be honest. Or Heresy.
This, to me, is the final proof that GW truly do not a give a crap.
To even play casual games will take a full day of looking through all the unit options, finding the not terrible ones, building new squad sergeants, building all the tanks that were crap in 9th but are our 'well what else is there?' in 10th. And feeling bad about it the whole time because Eradicators are NINETY FIVE POINTS.
I SHOULD just play my space marines and be done with it, but I hate space marines. I was planning on using 10th to sell them off for Tyranids, but now if I do that, I'll have an unplayable army and an unbuilt army and that's about it.
Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.
They are not.
It just blows my mind because they did this for the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and then backpedaled on it like a month after release, adding points costs to the obvious upgrades.
And that system worked- some options were just made free/basic equipment, some were consolidated, some were set up as sidegrades. Points costs were reserved for the most impactful upgrades, and tied to easy-to-work-with multiples of 5.
Then I guess they said 'haha jk' and we're back to where we were.
Well, the way GW did it here, if they do say "haha jk" then they only have one document to change, instead of changing every single Datasheet.
I'll bet that when the faction codices get released though, that the Munitorum Field Manual is going to get updated with more options. Or it will be included in the codex.
Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.
They are not.
Crusade was just copying the system which AoS had already implemented.
That's reductive. AoS is more or less designed around the idea that unit upgrades are going to be free. They're YEARS removed from '40 skeletons get 40 banners'.
40k is ENTIRELY built from models on up around the idea that a Multimelta is going to cost more than a Flamer.
Which is how you end up with 130pt Retributors and 95pt Eradicators.
Apokalypse works with Power Level, there are still duds and the whole system is built around it.
Implementing this as the only way for 40K is hilarious. And it's quite obvious they knew there would be a backlash, otherwize they wouldn't have held that information back until now. If they were confident with that decision they would have told us in one of the first previews to 10th or in any of the focusses, but they know how many people felt about Power Level.
skeleton wrote: For us is the choise, are we going to play 10the, or do we play an older edition. for new players or compitition players there isnt that choise.
The correct choice is to just not play 40k to be honest. Or Heresy.
This, to me, is the final proof that GW truly do not a give a crap.
To even play casual games will take a full day of looking through all the unit options, finding the not terrible ones, building new squad sergeants, building all the tanks that were crap in 9th but are our 'well what else is there?' in 10th. And feeling bad about it the whole time because Eradicators are NINETY FIVE POINTS.
I SHOULD just play my space marines and be done with it, but I hate space marines. I was planning on using 10th to sell them off for Tyranids, but now if I do that, I'll have an unplayable army and an unbuilt army and that's about it.
So given your strength of feeling, you’ll either delete your account or not bother with Dakka in the fyootcha?
Next week they will come over all "we listened" and publish equipment points for positive pr and praise for their live service model. Not very likely of course but companies have done crazier things.
Next week they will come over all "we listened" and publish equipment points for positive pr and praise for their live service model. Not very likely of course but companies have done crazier things.
I dont actually believe it btw.
or there will be some "look this is a short term fix so people can get used to the new rules, a revised points system will be presented alongside the first codex!"
Insectum7 wrote: Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.
It doesn't, because they haven't applied it across the rest of the game.
Applied what?
If the idea was to make the different options (SI Bolters and Combi-weapons) balanced without using points, the solution is to just mash the potential damage output of the combi-weapons.
I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.
Next week they will come over all "we listened" and publish equipment points for positive pr and praise for their live service model. Not very likely of course but companies have done crazier things.
I dont actually believe it btw.
Dont you think they will wait 2 months so people have sold or bought just enough models to invalidate their current army setup?
No way Im gonna bother retooling my astra militarum to this nonsense, but my 3rd ed Necron army actually is about 2000 points the whole way and still is, with some scarabs for loose change and an extra lord I had lying around since early 2000s. I'll just play with that one instead.
That said, I like the easier points system. Hope they would keep it somehow. Makes it more predictable what to meet in turnaments and how to deal with units. 40k could need some more standardization and less rerolls.
Insectum7 wrote: Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.
It doesn't, because they haven't applied it across the rest of the game.
Applied what?
If the idea was to make the different options (SI Bolters and Combi-weapons) balanced without using points, the solution is to just mash the potential damage output of the combi-weapons.
I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.
I'd say a major consistency with GW these days is their inconsistency. And just poor thinking.
In other news, I just built a 1K army! It was incredibly un-fun.
I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.
As a BA player who just a few months ago built 10 true scale vanguard veterans(quite pricy with assault intercessor legs, 3d printed torsos, FW heads and shoulders and then VV weapons and JP) with mixed load outs to be both semi competitive but mostly awesome looking along with 10 Death Company Marines with JP that have 0 power fists or inferno pistols among them I really feel this. I think 2 of the VV veterans out of those 20 models look close to an optimal load out. Having thunder hammers or lightning claws count as "Heirloom weapons" just feels wrong since both lightning claws and thunder hammers still exists among space marines and have very different stats from heirloom weapons. Would just be confusing for both players when my kitted out Veteran sergeant wielding a thunder hammer only have S5 ap1 D1 and not S8 ap2 D3 like he obviously look like.
So 18 out of 20 of my latest bought, built and painted models are either complete trash(DC with BP and CS are so much worse than PF+IP it isnt funny that they are the same points) or needs to have their arms broken off. I didn´t give them optimal load outs to begin with cause if I varied a bit at least the majority should still be useful even if not optimal in the next edition. So I didnt bother using magnets (I was out of right size and couldnt bother to order more) and were ok with shelving some of them until their equipment would be useful later down the line but I never thought I would have to shelve 90% of them or giving up a big advantage.
Then Sanguinary Guard is expensive as hell and I only have 20% of them with magnetized bolters/inferno pistols (I do like that they went back to Encarmine Blades) and Mephiston lost his wings while becoming even worse of a psyker and the best squad he can even join is assault intercessors. Most of the models I own(or more like those I have painted) really suck now. Not that the army or marines are weak but my personal shelf of well painted blood angels I have spent way too much time on got hit extra hard and I either spend 50-100h painting up replacements or wait for next major update.
AoS works because different options trade something
if there is one anti-infantry option and one anti-tank option, you don't need points as you trade the specialisation
if there is a 3rd option that is good against both and better than the other way, you need something to compensate and this would be points
just having not points for options but at the same time all kind of options that don't trade but are straight upgrades just means the 40k designers again just picked stuff from other games they thought are cool without understanding why those are there in the first place
was the same with stratagems, was the same with range markings in Kill Team and now with Power Level
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: So 18 out of 20 of my latest bought, built and painted models are either complete trash(DC with BP and CS are so much worse than PF+IP it isnt funny that they are the same points)
and complaining about those means for the regular GW fanboy that you are a WAAC player that complains because his units are not the strongest anymore and he needs to buy new models to be competitive again
and yes this excuse will be thrown around if you say something was invalidated, as this never happens with 40k in all its history and every army was always playabler after a change, you just need to buy a little bit more to be up to date
People keep representing AoS as being picking whether you want to have a 3+ to hit and 4+ to wound or 4+ to hit and 3+ to wound.
I'm guessing those people haven't actually played AoS.
What trade-off am I making when I swap an arkanaut's pistol for a light skyhook? Or add a banner to a unit. Pure upgrade. Many units have options like these.
It still works in AoS, just like it will work in 40k.
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
Insectum7 wrote: Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.
It doesn't, because they haven't applied it across the rest of the game.
Applied what?
If the idea was to make the different options (SI Bolters and Combi-weapons) balanced without using points, the solution is to just mash the potential damage output of the combi-weapons.
I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.
Careful. You're going to invoke the monkey's paw and get a New! Updated! 10 man death company box with exactly 2 powerfists and a datacard to match.
90% sure VVs are getting a new kit and card to match the sternguard.
Billicus wrote: There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.
Slinky wrote: None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...
*edit* Also, all the Leman Russ variants have different points, but then a Tank Commander costs the same no matter which turret gun?
Yep. Simplified, not simple!
The tank commander is a great example, another one is Deathwatch Killteam unit composition... a lot of 0-2 or 0-4 possibilities, but you better bring a squad of 5 or 10 dudes...
Billicus wrote: There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.
They have different uses but a lascannon is infinitely better in 90% of situations and tends to be a 20pt per model upgrade. It's not that odd of an example if you're passingly familiar with Warhammer 40,000.
Voss wrote: Careful. You're going to invoke the monkey's paw and get a New! Updated! 10 man death company box with exactly 2 powerfists and a datacard to match.
90% sure VVs are getting a new kit and card to match the sternguard.
It's a friggin' shame that the CSM Termies kit got made before the paradigm. Bleh.
Billicus wrote: There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.
OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?
AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.
What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.
GW really dropped the balls on Hellguns/Hotshot weapons. Used to be they were high, high AP weapons with short range and low Str to compensate, and you had to play around that, they were kinda unique.
Look at it now, just a generic trash with a meager point of AP and the same range as everything else, it's generic, and boring.
Slinky wrote: None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...
Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?
I dont know, but I gave up when I read the following rule from 10th:
Conversion weapons are more powerful at longer range: when firing at a target at least 12″ away, they inflict Critical Hits on hit rolls of 4+. Critical Hits don’t do anything in and of themselves, but they can trigger other abilities, such as Lethal Hits or Sustained Hits.
Thats not streamlined at all. Thats bloody awful.
I'm going to play some 10th, but I stick mostly to 3rd 40k and some Mordheim. I want to partake in the newest editions, I really do. But I just cant learn all the rules, scenarios and codexi before some new rules paradigm shifts.
Slinky wrote: None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...
Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?
I dont know, but I gave up when I read the following rule from 10th:
Conversion weapons are more powerful at longer range: when firing at a target at least 12″ away, they inflict Critical Hits on hit rolls of 4+. Critical Hits don’t do anything in and of themselves, but they can trigger other abilities, such as Lethal Hits or Sustained Hits.
Thats not streamlined at all. Thats bloody awful.
That's... not actually what the rule says, however. That's part of the rule plus a poor definition of critical hits with examples.
There are things to complain about, but that's stacking the straw man.
Billicus wrote: There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.
OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?
AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.
What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.
Arkanaut Company with nothing but pistols is literally the wrong choice every single time. Light Skyhook, skypike, volley pistol, and volleygun are the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There is no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place?
And again, there are many such units with these sorts of options in Age of Sigmar. The community at-large is perfectly a-okay with this, it's fine, because you're going to be picking the best options any ways. The bad options are for people who are fine with picking bad options.
You could make an aethermatic volley-gun 10 points and a light skyhook 15 points and in 90% of cases people would still pay the points for them because they're vital for the unit's role in-game.
AoS's sidegrades are like when you can pick between a spear or a sword for a unit - an option that's becoming increasingly rare as time goes on as the weapon gets rolled into "spears and swords" with one profile, because people always pick the optimal profile anyways. And even with the minor side-grade differences, there is always an optimal choice. This weapon is 2" range 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and the other is 1" range, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound? Okay, I have easy access to +1 to hit, so spear is always correct. Oh, it's the season where models in base-to-base can fight over each other anyways, the sword is better now. etc etc etc
I sympathize with the people who picked options that were once good and are now bad. That sucks when that happens. But to suggest this new system is impossible to work with is just useless gnashing of teeth. The system works perfectly fine, as long as you work within it. People can make bad choices with their units even within a hyper-modular points system, let's not pretend AoS style/PL style points are uniquely terrible in any way.
Bobthehero wrote: GW really dropped the balls on Hellguns/Hotshot weapons. Used to be they were high, high AP weapons with short range and low Str to compensate, and you had to play around that, they were kinda unique.
Look at it now, just a generic trash with a meager point of AP and the same range as everything else, it's generic, and boring.
The entire graded armor piercing is a mistake, imo. Makes weapons bland and "just fire and see what sticks".
Some weapons should bounce off a power armor of a Space Marine, and others should pierce through it. It's also easier to keep track off.
And with all the critical, lethal, sustained, mortal hit wounds and plethora of Power fists and str 8 weapons in the game, there are other ways to granulate weapons that just flat out leaves armor either resistant or non resistant to some weapons.
Slinky wrote: None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...
Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?
I dont know, but I gave up when I read the following rule from 10th:
Conversion weapons are more powerful at longer range: when firing at a target at least 12″ away, they inflict Critical Hits on hit rolls of 4+. Critical Hits don’t do anything in and of themselves, but they can trigger other abilities, such as Lethal Hits or Sustained Hits.
Thats not streamlined at all. Thats bloody awful.
That's... not actually what the rule says, however. That's part of the rule plus a poor definition of critical hits with examples.
There are things to complain about, but that's stacking the straw man.
My point was that we've gone from regular and mortal wounds to critical, lethal and sustained hits. There is also something called devastating hits. I hope this is streamlining, but I have a hard time believing that.
I don't think GW has ever insisted on WYSIWYG? (In before it was in a paragraph of the 5th edition rules I'm forgetting).
I guess I'm sort of half-full, half empty. In terms of my existing stuff, I'm feeling very negative about this. There may have been issues with the 8th-9th edition evolution, but it seems to have been sacrificed for an incredibly simple system which may end up being a complete mess. I think me and DE may be done, because there's almost no emotional/fluff hooks to keep me in.
On the other, I think if you were looking to start 40k for the first time, its seemingly a lot easier to start than 9th. And this whole "they've made the unit like what's in the box" isn't so much of a problem given you'll probably be buying boxes. I can see armies where I don't have so much built up baggage and think "yeah, that might be fun" even if the existing players are feeling the same as I am about DE.
Billicus wrote: There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.
OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?
AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.
100% this.
With this system, I'll never use anything but a plasma pistol on any of my sergeants. I'll never not take both a Venom Cannon and Barbed Strangler on my Warriors. If you don't have sponsons on your Leman Russ your unit is shittier for literally no reason. You have less choice, not more.
I've seen people argue that this way you can build whatever came in the kit and not be penalized for it... except you are getting penalized for it, you seriously are, because if you build something other than the most powerful configuration with all the bells and whistles you're still paying the same. Oh, you thought your Guardsmen look good with just their basic lasguns as light infantry? What are you, stupid?
Bobthehero wrote:GW really dropped the balls on Hellguns/Hotshot weapons. Used to be they were high, high AP weapons with short range and low Str to compensate, and you had to play around that, they were kinda unique.
Look at it now, just a generic trash with a meager point of AP and the same range as everything else, it's generic, and boring.
To be fair, prior to the 5th Ed Cruddace Codex hellguns were just lasguns with AP5. That point of -1AP so it actually does something to Marines is more impactful.
Billicus wrote: There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.
OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?
AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.
What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.
Spoiler:
Arkanaut Company with nothing but pistols is literally the wrong choice every single time. Light Skyhook, skypike, volley pistol, and volleygun are the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There is no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place?
And again, there are many such units with these sorts of options in Age of Sigmar. The community at-large is perfectly a-okay with this, it's fine, because you're going to be picking the best options any ways. The bad options are for people who are fine with picking bad options.
You could make an aethermatic volley-gun 10 points and a light skyhook 15 points and in 90% of cases people would still pay the points for them because they're vital for the unit's role in-game.
AoS's sidegrades are like when you can pick between a spear or a sword for a unit - an option that's becoming increasingly rare as time goes on as the weapon gets rolled into "spears and swords" with one profile, because people always pick the optimal profile anyways. And even with the minor side-grade differences, there is always an optimal choice. This weapon is 2" range 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and the other is 1" range, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound? Okay, I have easy access to +1 to hit, so spear is always correct. Oh, it's the season where models in base-to-base can fight over each other anyways, the sword is better now. etc etc etc
I sympathize with the people who picked options that were once good and are now bad. That sucks when that happens. But to suggest this new system is impossible to work with is just useless gnashing of teeth. The system works perfectly fine, as long as you work within it. People can make bad choices with their units even within a hyper-modular points system, let's not pretend AoS style/PL style points are uniquely terrible in any way.
Cool. So all we've determined here is that AoS and 40k now share the same crappy points system. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? It's perfectly possible to create actual choice in army selection, with or without points. GW have failed to do that in many cases, apparently in 2 different systems. I don't think we should be applauding them for that.
With this system, I'll never use anything but a plasma pistol on any of my sergeants. I'll never not take both a Venom Cannon and Barbed Strangler on my Warriors. If you don't have sponsons on your Leman Russ your unit is shittier for literally no reason. You have less choice, not more.
I've seen people argue that this way you can build whatever came in the kit and not be penalized for it... except you are getting penalized for it, you seriously are, because if you build something other than the most powerful configuration with all the bells and whistles you're still paying the same. Oh, you thought your Guardsmen look good with just their basic lasguns as light infantry? What are you, stupid?
Exactly. At least previously you may have not built your models with the most powerful options, but the points system took account of that and gave you a discount on the unit. To go back to the Death Company again, taking 5 with TH was usually the correct choice (or 4 and a sacrificial guy) but if you took 5 with just BP/CS at least they were quite a bit cheaper and still had some utility so you were trading absolute effectiveness for a cheaper unit and effectiveness against a narrower range of targets.
To be fair, prior to the 5th Ed Cruddace Codex hellguns were just lasguns with AP5. That point of -1AP so it actually does something to Marines is more impactful.
In 3rd Hellguns comes with a targeter, allowing pre-measuring, contrary to regular weapons. But yeah, you have a point.
To be fair, prior to the 5th Ed Cruddace Codex hellguns were just lasguns with AP5. That point of -1AP so it actually does something to Marines is more impactful.
And they were incredibly generic, boring weapons, then, too, which sucked. 5-6-7th were when they were at their best, imo, as far as making it a distinctive weapon.
So I can get 10 Death Company SMs with Jump packs, and all 10 of them can have a power fist?
That wont last.
They'll change the setup fairly quickly.
And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.
While I sympathize with the poster a few pages back with 6 Dire Avengers, who now can only field 5, leaving one on the shelf. I think proxying/having a unit filler for those who lack a model or two will become common. I have 3x5 stealth suits painted in different schemes. I'd rather just put some Tau debris or a radar transmitter as the sixth unit if I have to, rather than paint another one post-completion.
Also. I expect the same points system for Warhammer the Old World, btw. GW is going for the wider markets, and this points system is what they believe is part of grabbing that demographic.
11th edition may even have five or six standardized price classes (i.e. 50, 80, 100, 175, 350) and then they'll just fit the unit into that slot, removing or adding a wound or two to make it the appropriate weight for the class.
Previously, not going balls out on upgrades on every single unit was important for a balanced army, and being judicious with those upgrades was a skill. Now, picking best in slot is all that matters, which is dogshit. This edition is DOA for me, may even cancel my Leviathan order since I know I won't be making use of the book now.
triplegrim wrote: And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.
If it's the end of WYSIWYG, and I kinda doubt it is, wouldn't that promote modelling for visual effect over modelling for mechanical efficiency? You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.
His Master's Voice wrote: You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.
A Leman Russ that shoots from invisible sponsons is just dumb on the face of it.
triplegrim wrote: And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.
If it's the end of WYSIWYG, and I kinda doubt it is, wouldn't that promote modelling for visual effect over modelling for mechanical efficiency? You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.
Billicus wrote: There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.
That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.
OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?
AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.
What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.
Arkanaut Company with nothing but pistols is literally the wrong choice every single time. Light Skyhook, skypike, volley pistol, and volleygun are the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There is no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place?
And again, there are many such units with these sorts of options in Age of Sigmar. The community at-large is perfectly a-okay with this, it's fine, because you're going to be picking the best options any ways. The bad options are for people who are fine with picking bad options.
You could make an aethermatic volley-gun 10 points and a light skyhook 15 points and in 90% of cases people would still pay the points for them because they're vital for the unit's role in-game.
AoS's sidegrades are like when you can pick between a spear or a sword for a unit - an option that's becoming increasingly rare as time goes on as the weapon gets rolled into "spears and swords" with one profile, because people always pick the optimal profile anyways. And even with the minor side-grade differences, there is always an optimal choice. This weapon is 2" range 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and the other is 1" range, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound? Okay, I have easy access to +1 to hit, so spear is always correct. Oh, it's the season where models in base-to-base can fight over each other anyways, the sword is better now. etc etc etc
I sympathize with the people who picked options that were once good and are now bad. That sucks when that happens. But to suggest this new system is impossible to work with is just useless gnashing of teeth. The system works perfectly fine, as long as you work within it. People can make bad choices with their units even within a hyper-modular points system, let's not pretend AoS style/PL style points are uniquely terrible in any way.
So the clueless people are going to choose the clueless options and everyone else is going to choose the auto 'option.' That's why the AoS community claims its' points 'work.' *Golfclap* You really sold the terrible AoS point system to me.
A banner upgrade in a unit that has no trade-offs for being taken is not a choice when it has no downside for taking it--it's free and gives extra bonus. It shouldn't be a choice because the choice is pointless. It should just state the unit has a banner, or give the banner a cost or give it a detriment for taking it, ie that model loses 1 from it's WS, etc. Then the option has a reason for existing.
In 40k, if I want a cheap 40 point throw-away unit that can claim objectives and do other minor tasks in game, I should be able to choose that rather than paying 80 points for the same unit that has all the extra wargear and weapons tacked on to it automatically, regardless of what wargear I put on them. It's ridiculous to claim that I'm going to choose the best options every time--no, I'm not because I don't have the points to do so. That's the point of using points.
WYSIWYG is there so that both players always know which unit has which weapons
problem is there is no way to know which weapons your models actually carry otherwise
the data card has all of them, it makes no difference in the army list and if you model for style, you can switch flamers and melta on the need as no one really knows anyway until you first use it
It's also a play aid. If your entire army is a word salad of one-per-unit wargear upgrades you need a way to keep track of who has what.
'This guy with a grenade launcher actually has a plasma gun' is manageable.
'These six units of Wracks that are all modeled with hooks and chains actually contain a liquifier, ossefactor, hexrifle, and stinger pistol' really isn't.
In 40k, if I want a cheap 40 point throw-away unit that can claim objectives and do other minor tasks in game, I should be able to choose that rather than paying 80 points for the same unit that has all the extra wargear and weapons tacked on to it automatically, regardless of what wargear I put on them. It's ridiculous to claim that I'm going to choose the best options every time--no, I'm not because I don't have the points to do so. That's the point of using points.
This thought process confuses me. Surely you'd pick the 40 point cheap throw-away unit because it's the best options for what you want it to do? That you'd even consider the 40 point version over the 80 point version proves you're choosing the best options every time, because both of those options have valid roles. Sorry that the unit has changed roles/lost versatility to be an 80 point unit that exists beyond just being thrown away. But units change roles/lose versatility all the time even in a granular point system?
The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.
I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.
triplegrim wrote: And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.
If it's the end of WYSIWYG, and I kinda doubt it is, wouldn't that promote modelling for visual effect over modelling for mechanical efficiency? You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.
. Thats the glass half full way to see it, yes.
On the other hand, my motivation will just disappear, because I'm a fairly lazy chump who proxies weapons and gear if I sense an accepting opponent, so theres that.
In 40k, if I want a cheap 40 point throw-away unit that can claim objectives and do other minor tasks in game, I should be able to choose that rather than paying 80 points for the same unit that has all the extra wargear and weapons tacked on to it automatically, regardless of what wargear I put on them. It's ridiculous to claim that I'm going to choose the best options every time--no, I'm not because I don't have the points to do so. That's the point of using points.
This thought process confuses me. Surely you'd pick the 40 point cheap throw-away unit because it's the best options for what you want it to do? That you'd even consider the 40 point version over the 80 point version proves you're choosing the best options every time, because both of those options have valid roles. Sorry that the unit has changed roles/lost versatility to be an 80 point unit that exists beyond just being thrown away. But units change roles/lose versatility all the time even in a granular point system?
That's not really how opportunity costs work. The 40pt unit doing throwaway unit stuff is valuable BECAUSE it's 40pts. At 80pts, it's roll is no longer worth completing AT ALL and is better made up in other areas of the army.
When you make a 40pt unit an 80pt unit by adding bells and whistles, you are often eliminating it's purpose altogether.
Example: My back iches and I can't scratch it. I can 1. Find a nearby stick to extend my reach enough to scratch the area or 2. Go to the store and buy a Backscratcher. The backscratcher is better at the task at hand, but is far more resource intensive.
Now take away the stick. You go buy the backscratcher, right? Wrong, you just deal with itch because the investment isn't worth it anymore.
Mchagen wrote: The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.
I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.
Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.
That's not really how opportunity costs work. The 40pt unit doing throwaway unit stuff is valuable BECAUSE it's 40pts. At 80pts, it's roll is no longer worth completing AT ALL and is better made up in other areas of the army.
When you make a 40pt unit an 80pt unit by adding bells and whistles, you are often eliminating it's purpose altogether.
When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.
This new army construction is absolute trash, and is basically what I feared would happen when they started the 10th hype months ago.
Fixed unit sizes, all upgrades free, wasted points...
they just copied the horrible age of sigmar system and put in 40k. Absolutely terrible. That is the worst part of the Age of Sigmar, and to tack that onto 40k and remove a system that had been working great for decades is ridiculous.
Nobody in my group likes these changes. We'll still give it a go, but I have lost just about all interest in the edition.
Army construction is boring and everything will be cookie cutter. No individuality, no choice, no balancing taking option a over b and c, etc etc.
At the same time armies in 40K are way bigger than most in AoS. In theory GW could be moving toward having fewer units with 10 weapon options that lets them do everything; toward units that have specific roles and more limited weapons; but where the unit itself is the option a over option b.
It would lend itself well to bigger army rosters and more unit types within each army.
When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.
"Taking away options is cool!"
Yeah, no.
There was a great time when Termagants came in cheap-objective/screen mode with the Fleshborer, and then a more expensive shock-assault mode with Devourers. People would even have discussions about the best ratios to mix the weapons. No such now. No wargear costs and a flattened design makes for a less interesting unit, and reduces the flexibility for fishing for points when you're trying to squeeze some other unit into the your list.
Can't even take a 30-gant squad now.
Tyranid Warriors can't even go past 6 models. Ugh.
I really vehemently hate the new "points" system. My 4 other friends that play too hate it and I think this bodes poorly for player retention. Nobody is excited. I'm already looking forward to 11th edition.
Mchagen wrote: The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.
I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.
Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.
This is a terrible response, my post has nothing to do with Guard and has nothing to do with fixed unit sizes.
Kanluwen wrote:When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.
I'm curious, do you think pawns should be eliminated in chess? This is a rhetorical question by the way.
Mchagen wrote: The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.
I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.
Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.
This is a terrible response, my post has nothing to do with Guard and has nothing to do with fixed unit sizes.
Might want to tell that to your quoted post then?
Because it seems pretty heavily like you're just complaining that you can't take the "cheap throwaway unit" as a MSU anymore.
Kanluwen wrote:When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.
I'm curious, do you think pawns should be eliminated in chess? This is a rhetorical question by the way.
Aw gee, I wish it weren't rhetorical so I could answer it...might as well!
Yeah. I do think that doing away with the role of "cheap throwaway unit that contributes nothing to the game other than bodies" is beneficial for 40k.
Because 40k isn't chess and pretending that every faction has Pawns is ridiculous.
ph34r wrote: I really vehemently hate the new "points" system. My 4 other friends that play too hate it and I think this bodes poorly for player retention. Nobody is excited. I'm already looking forward to 11th edition.
Yep. There's about 10 people and my group and nobody likes these changes. We are still gonna try out the game as we all love the lore and whatnot, but my god...who asked for these horrible changes?
Why are the killing the goose that lays the golden egg?!?!
Mchagen wrote: The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.
I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.
Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.
This is a terrible response, my post has nothing to do with Guard and has nothing to do with fixed unit sizes.
Might want to tell that to your quoted post then?
Because it seems pretty heavily like you're just complaining that you can't take the "cheap throwaway unit" as a MSU anymore.
Kanluwen wrote:When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.
I'm curious, do you think pawns should be eliminated in chess? This is a rhetorical question by the way.
Aw gee, I wish it weren't rhetorical so I could answer it...might as well!
Yeah. I do think that doing away with the role of "cheap throwaway unit that contributes nothing to the game other than bodies" is beneficial for 40k.
Because 40k isn't chess and pretending that every faction has Pawns is ridiculous.
^That's a ridiculous stance.
IG Commanders or Tyranid Hive Minds don't ever consider a role for cannon fodder?
Kanluwen wrote: Might want to tell that to your quoted post then?
Because it seems pretty heavily like you're just complaining that you can't take the "cheap throwaway unit" as a MSU anymore.
My quoted post mentioned neither Guard nor fixed unit sizes nor MSU, try again. Also, you seem to be focusing mostly on 'cheap throw-away unit' and not the actual point.
Kanluwen wrote:Aw gee, I wish it weren't rhetorical so I could answer it...might as well!
Yeah. I do think that doing away with the role of "cheap throwaway unit that contributes nothing to the game other than bodies" is beneficial for 40k.
Because 40k isn't chess and pretending that every faction has Pawns is ridiculous.
No it isn't chess, but there are reasons to take cheap(er) units in 40k. I'd assumed the idea of 'pawns,' aka sacrificial units in 40k was not beyond you, seems I was wrong.
Heafstaag wrote: This new army construction is absolute trash, and is basically what I feared would happen when they started the 10th hype months ago.
Fixed unit sizes, all upgrades free, wasted points...
they just copied the horrible age of sigmar system and put in 40k. Absolutely terrible. That is the worst part of the Age of Sigmar, and to tack that onto 40k and remove a system that had been working great for decades is ridiculous.
Nobody in my group likes these changes. We'll still give it a go, but I have lost just about all interest in the edition.
Army construction is boring and everything will be cookie cutter. No individuality, no choice, no balancing taking option a over b and c, etc etc.
Its lame as hell.
It works in AoS because units don't really have upgrades and they have built in systems dealing with the weird point amounts. It's still not my FAVORITE part of the game, but that's fine.
This is trying to cram a Ford F-150 engine into a Geo Metro.
Heafstaag wrote: This new army construction is absolute trash, and is basically what I feared would happen when they started the 10th hype months ago.
Fixed unit sizes, all upgrades free, wasted points...
they just copied the horrible age of sigmar system and put in 40k. Absolutely terrible. That is the worst part of the Age of Sigmar, and to tack that onto 40k and remove a system that had been working great for decades is ridiculous.
Nobody in my group likes these changes. We'll still give it a go, but I have lost just about all interest in the edition.
Army construction is boring and everything will be cookie cutter. No individuality, no choice, no balancing taking option a over b and c, etc etc.
Its lame as hell.
It works in AoS because units don't really have upgrades and they have built in systems dealing with the weird point amounts. It's still not my FAVORITE part of the game, but that's fine.
This is trying to cram a Ford F-150 engine into a Geo Metro.
I think AoS is fun enough, but the army construction is what is holding it back. Is so boring. Everything is so cookie cutter.
I will say I am 50% happy with the new points paradigm.
Good You will see less barebones units on the board. There is less incentive to find the optimal number of models for unit X.
More freedom to use cool models as the upgrades are free.
Bad Everyone will bring maximally upgraded units. No upgrades to pad your last few points.
Harder to get to exact points.
The one thing GW needs to do is a better job balancing the weapons against each other. They made a decent effort, but it is hard to balance so many weapons over so many targets. Here's the average damage you get out of an IG Heavy Weapons Squad. Not surprisingly, the Lascannon are best against tanks while Heavy Bolters are pretty boss into Infantry.
At the same time 40K (esp Space Marines who in effect have 2 armies in one with standard and primaris) has been slowly running out of unit niches.
Heck Tyranids used to operate with just the Carnifex doing pretty much every heavy support role they needed.
I can see a balance discussion, esp one that's looking for new niches to put models into so that they can keep adding to armies; sitting next to staff arguing for smaller numbers of models per army.
That's a hard discussion when some of those models are multi-role because they've got 5-10 weapon options.
How do you make a new artillery model when several models already have artillery options. do you make the new model superior and thus make the others pointless to take; or make them all the same or just alternate which one you nerf each edition.
At the same time, in typical GW fashion, they've likely taken the seed of a good idea and applied it with too heavy a stroke in one go.
Heck maybe its sparked by complaints that building armies with codex is freaking hard and page flippingly annoying and for some reason GW can't go back to the older 3rd edition style of codex data presentation (which was just as varied in optoins but way way easier to read); so they decided to respond to that issue by simply removing the tables of optional parts that caused the complaints .
Well, the dude at the gamestore painting Armigers 7-12 tonight isn't bothered by it in the least and everyone else seems to be shrugging. I think GW wins again with their most important customers. It doesn't win with me, but that's OK.
alextroy wrote: I will say I am 50% happy with the new points paradigm.
Good You will see less barebones units on the board. There is less incentive to find the optimal number of models for unit X.
More freedom to use cool models as the upgrades are free.
Well, no. The optimal numbers are simply reduced to 5 or 10 OR 10 or 20.
or sometimes 5, 6, 10, 11 or 12. Or 1, 2, 3 or 6.
And more freedom to use the weapons that are good, perhaps. So-so weapons can never be cost effective.
Getting to or padding exact points isn't important and never has been. If 1997/2000 created a game defining moment, something went terribly wrong.
Though now some armies might end up with a 30-60 point gap they just can't do anything about
Yeah, this feels pretty awkward. If they aren't going to have points values for upgrades, they should adjust the stats of the weapons so that various options are viable, depending on your matchup. Bolt pistols could be better against light infantry and plasma pistols could be better against heavily-armored troops, for example. With this system, you're just foolish not to model the strongest weapon onto your miniature in many cases.
My only real gripe with the fixed unit sizes is it makes it a bit more awkward to fit certain units into transports. For example, if I want to run a bigger squad of Bladeguard with a character in an Impulsor, I now can't do that because it holds 6 models, not 7. Taking a smaller unit feels like it wastes the character, and if I have to pay for 6 models I'm gonna have my full 6 models, dammit. As for the points on the wargear going away, I do think a lot of the choices are going to get frozen out by the more optimal stuff, but with the changes to the game as a whole I don't think it's going to be as bad as a lot of the chicken littles in this thread are saying. For example, let's compare the Lascannon to the Multi-melta on, say, a Devastator Squad. In 9th, it was no contest, the MM was better because it did the same job and had two shots to the Lascannon's one, and better AP to boot. The longer range of the LC wasn't really a factor either, usually people were using Devs out of a pod to get close to the enemy. Now, that choice is back, both because the MM has an even shorter range and because at S9 it just isn't as good at busting vehicles and monsters now that they've all gone way up in toughness. Likewise, flamers are really good with the changes to overwatch, so people saying that in Sisters nobody should choose anything besides meltas and "if you choose flamers or storm bolters or heavy bolters you're stupid" (you know who you are) can go pound sand. Units still need to have the right tools for their respective jobs, and not be trying to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver (or trying to use anti-tank weapons to clear a big squad of Ork Boyz or whatever).
Honestly, while I think GW perhaps went a bit too far getting rid of all weapons costs, I'm of the opinion that we as players will simply have to adapt. The bigger problem as it stands right now is balance, but we know that's something GW is fairly proactive about changing with balance dataslates and stuff. I do think we're all going to have to hail our pointy-eared overlords for the time being though. But nothing is forever.
Boosykes wrote: Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?
I'm somewhat growing on the fixed unit sizes. At least it makes min-maxing harder. However, you the have units like Deathwatch Proteus teams that deserve points destinations between power armor and terminator squad members.
I'd also like to have points for all the unit upgrades, even if the points in increments of 5.
While I'm not entirely happy with fixed unit sizes, I do like that it gives way better pricing flexibility. Units can have costs that aren't a product of their model count.
Of course the execution is mixed at best because GW is going to GW.
Not having weapon costs is dumb though. Not all weapons need costs nor all units need weapon costs, but still it is very stupid that everyone gets free wargear.
That's not really how opportunity costs work. The 40pt unit doing throwaway unit stuff is valuable BECAUSE it's 40pts. At 80pts, it's roll is no longer worth completing AT ALL and is better made up in other areas of the army.
When you make a 40pt unit an 80pt unit by adding bells and whistles, you are often eliminating it's purpose altogether.
When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.
It's not just 'cheap throwaway units' that have been obliterated, it's every unit configuration that chose to forgo upgrades or chose any other than the strict best.
Take Tyranid Warriors. At one point I would field, within the same army:
-Scything Talons + Devourers for cheap, reasonably durable Synapse projectors that could do some damage up close without being so expensive that I'd worry about protecting them.
-Boneswords + Deathspitters for expensive but hard-hitting shock troops to accompany my Tyrant, capable of both melee and shooting.
-Scything Talons + Deathspitters + Venom Cannons for backfield protection and ranged fire support, omitting melee capability and maximizing firepower.
None of those builds were cheap throwaway units that contributed nothing but wounds on the table. They were different units for different roles, because loading up all the best weapons and upgrades meant an expensive unit that died just as easily as any other.
In 10th, every single unit of Warriors is going to be exactly the same: One-third Deathspitters, one-third Venom Cannons, and one-third Barbed Stranglers, and melee weapons don't matter because they've all been consolidated. That's the purely optimal build taking the maximum amount of each of the best weapons, and nothing else is as effective. There's no choice, there's no consideration, there's One Obvious Correct Build and if you take Warriors at all that's how you field them.
And if you haven't magnetized your Warriors to be able to assemble the One Obvious Correct Build, as far as GW is concerned you can piss up a rope.
This post, like Gaul, is divided into three parts:
First, a plea: Please, please, please, stop arguing that free upgrades aren't a problem because the weapons are differentiated and useful for different purposes. Even if that were completely, perfectly true, there's still a problem. Units have literal upgrades. You can add sponsons to Leman Russes. There's zero downside. You get more weapons, for free. I know a LOT of guard players who fielded skinny Leman Russ tanks to let them spend more points on more models. The other, perhaps more perfect example:
Ork Battlewagon, which comes equipped with tracks and wheels.
It can 'trade' those tracks and wheels for the 'sidegrade' of a Deffrolla, which has the same attacks, better WS, higher S, more AP, and more Damage at the same cost. There's no balancing of weapon profiles. One is superior to the other in literally every single melee weapon stat but one, where it is just as good.
Then, it can add, for free, a Lobba, a kannon/zzap gun, up to 4 big shootas, a wreckin' ball, and a grabbin' klaw, for six additional ranged weapons and two additional melee weapons, at no cost in points.
There is no way imagineable that this is balanced. If the battlewagon is priced at including three melee upgrades and six ranged upgrades, it's overpriced for not including any one of them.
Second, a warning: unless you are a player who routinely churns through new armies for each new edition, or each tournament season, don't suddenly add every single upgrade to your army. There's absolutely zero guarantee that GW won't change points values midstream, or charge for upgrades next edition. Then you need to get new models without those power fists/plasma pistols/side sponsons. Make the model you want to assemble and paint, if you want to collect an army you love. The game won't be balanced. It just won't. But I know that a LOT of people can have fun playing a game with their mates, even if they lose. Don't let GW make you get rid of models you love, especially since they change this crap every 3 years now.
Finally, a happy thought: At least GW gave us the game rules, the army lists, and the points values separately. There's nothing to say that someone can't hammer out their own points values with some world-wide community feedback. If we had editions with ITC rulings on this, that, and the other, maybe we can just leave the GW game, and army lists, alone, and provide a tournament points list?
Options without points cost: love it.
There has always been an optimal build in the past, so nothing wil really change at worst.
But maybe they managed to make them close enough in balance it mostly does not matter ( i know Plasma Pistols in characters, thankfully they dont really Matter much and in many cases its a fixed loadout anyway)
Fixed unit size:I played within 9th daemons and while no god numbers hurt a bit it is FINE. Simplyfies list building a lot and its seriously not a problem.
The actual Points: man, maybe i just lack the experience with the system but it feels like most "Epic" heroes are way undercosted.
But we will See.
Option disparity gets worse without points cost and they doubled down on it with twin linked. The double shuriken catapult bikes are now twin linked garbage sitting in the box instead of a cheaper option, whereas without points cost the double one which just had twice the shots is almost competitive with the heavy weapons versions.
I don't want to harp on, as it seems we're about 90% agreed that upgrades without points are a bad thing, but I've been updating the points for my Imperial Guard, and here's another really silly example:
Armoured sentinels "can" have a sentinel chainsaw that makes them better at melee, and they "can" have a HK missile. But there's 0 reason not to take those things.
And going back to Leman Russ tanks:
Leman Russ 1: Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter
Leman Russ 2: Battle Cannon, Las cannon, 2 multi-meltas, a hunter-killer missile and a storm bolter.
Honestly I dare say I'll play and enjoy 10th as a game to roll dice and have a laugh with. I don't play with competitive types anyway but this change doesn't feel great to me still and I'm convinced they'll suffer for it. I think the e-sports crowd will drop off now.
Good More freedom to use cool models as the upgrades are free.
I have to disagree with this one - Under a model where upgrades cost points you have the freedom to build your models however you want, and then the points costs make an attempt (not always a good one, of course) of assigning a value to your choices.
Whereas now, if your idea of cool is to leave a storm bolter off the turret so your tank commander can be viewed in all his glory, you've made a mistake that strictly makes the model worse in-game...
I’ve been mulling this overnight and it boils down to two things:
1) I don’t mind losing points costs for minor upgrades (grenades, HK missiles, etc.); I think that’s a good level of simplification and it will only have a very small impact on gameplay. However, if they were going to go down this route, why bother with making them options in the first place. Save the space on the data sheet and just have them included in the base profile. This also solves a lot of the modelling / WYSIWYG issues; doesn’t matter whether I stuck a HK to my tank or not under previous editions, it’s got one, end of.
2) As others have said, not including points for major options is a big mistake. I think there’s an argument that, for example, all special weapons could be the same price, but there definitely ought to be a price differential between squads with a special weapon and ones without. Not just for balance reasons, but also for tactical options. The Ork Battlewagon is a great example; having a barebones wagon for transporting a key unit, where it is also likely to get right in face of the enemy (where it will die, quickly), versus a full gun-wagon that’s used as a tank and is standing off and using cover to stay alive are two very different things.
I got the the same vibes here when WFB was turned into AoS, then it was harsher with the few page rules, use anything approach etc.
I also get the feeling the actual content of the units themselves here is getting simplified to the point that its not about how they perform individually but rather how they perform in an army depending how much you spam them. (sounds boring)
Everyone will only use the same cookie cutter units but people will probably have different quantities/combinations of them?
Not sure but dont care much XD
Either way 40k should always have been beer and pretzels game IMO but just got too bloated. I still think it is, because a normal game of errrr 3hours is just too much commitment.
I think for competitive players there is a fat layer of unit optimisation that is now just gone, for everyone else is still bloated so I think these rules amends did not bring much to anyone really.
Next GW move, concentrate only on combat patrol boxes with prebuilt armies that you cannot change a thing and have less multipart regiment kits. This is what they are aiming too.
Dont know about other armies but Votann got points reductions that means I need to buy 300pts extra now... Maybe it's just the stunties but did the other armies also got point reductions? If so Naughty GW
Jadenim wrote: I’ve been mulling this overnight and it boils down to two things:
1) I don’t mind losing points costs for minor upgrades (grenades, HK missiles, etc.); I think that’s a good level of simplification and it will only have a very small impact on gameplay. However, if they were going to go down this route, why bother with making them options in the first place. Save the space on the data sheet and just have them included in the base profile. This also solves a lot of the modelling / WYSIWYG issues; doesn’t matter whether I stuck a HK to my tank or not under previous editions, it’s got one, end of.
2) As others have said, not including points for major options is a big mistake. I think there’s an argument that, for example, all special weapons could be the same price, but there definitely ought to be a price differential between squads with a special weapon and ones without. Not just for balance reasons, but also for tactical options. The Ork Battlewagon is a great example; having a barebones wagon for transporting a key unit, where it is also likely to get right in face of the enemy (where it will die, quickly), versus a full gun-wagon that’s used as a tank and is standing off and using cover to stay alive are two very different things.
Yeah this is basically my position too. Many of the smaller wargear options like sergeant pistols or single special weapons will be a relatively minor effect on a game, perhaps getting into range to fire their small number of shots once or twice. 40k as a whole is also nowhere close to the level of balance fine-tuning where those choices need to be seriously considered. Right now it's pointless extra book-keeping for both the players and the team who decide on ponits changes.
What they should be focusing on instead are:
a) Allowing more incremental changes to model counts in units.
b) The more substantial choices like Ork Battlewagons or Leman Russ sponsons, which are more likely to have a larger effect across multiple turns and aren't really a choice at all if they're free.
The one silver lining to this situation is that it has the same air as the Chapter Approved drama around 18 months ago. Early last year GW sent out what was to be the final printed copy of a Chapter Approved points update for review by content creator types. Unusually for people sent free gak from GW, those reviews ranged from tepid to straight up scathing. Almost all of them questioned why GW were sticking to printed media and made points changes that were 6-12 months behind the actual state of the game. The reaction prompted GW announcing digital points updates not long after.
The same people with preview material have spent the last couple of weeks being coy about the points changes knowing full well how they'd be recieved. Now that they're allowed to talk about it, we're seeing much of the same language in questioning why the changes need to be so extreme and restrictive to both list building & game balance.
I'm hopeful history will repeat itself and this can be at least partially walked back.
Dudeface wrote: I don't play with competitive types anyway but this change doesn't feel great to me still and I'm convinced they'll suffer for it. I think the e-sports crowd will drop off now.
Implying that points are only important for competitive/e-sports type.
If I ignore the cynic in me, I can see some merit in what GW is trying to do. A lot of the issues with 40k stem from its Rogue Trader era roots, that no longer connect well to the trunk of a game played on a very different scale. Tightening unit size and wargear options can, in theory, deal with or eliminate a number of old issues, like 1% options, MSU spam, entry bloat or time wasted on resolving 4 different weapon profiles per unit. There should be a sweet spot for 40k somewhere between skirmish and Epic in terms of granularity of rules and list building. Granted, the execution of this transition seems a touch haphazard and it will likely result in a game that some players might not be interested in any more, but it can result in one more in sync with its scale and therefore one that plays better.
Dudeface wrote: I don't play with competitive types anyway but this change doesn't feel great to me still and I'm convinced they'll suffer for it. I think the e-sports crowd will drop off now.
Implying that points are only important for competitive/e-sports type.
Yet they still manage to play with rulers, ironic.
His Master's Voice wrote: If I ignore the cynic in me, I can see some merit in what GW is trying to do. A lot of the issues with 40k stem from its Rogue Trader era roots, that no longer connect well to the trunk of a game played on a very different scale. Tightening unit size and wargear options can, in theory, deal with or eliminate a number of old issues, like 1% options, MSU spam, entry bloat or time wasted on resolving 4 different weapon profiles per unit. There should be a sweet spot for 40k somewhere between skirmish and Epic in terms of granularity of rules and list building. Granted, the execution of this transition seems a touch haphazard and it will likely result in a game that some players might not be interested in any more, but it can result in one more in sync with its scale and therefore one that plays better.
Theoretically speaking.
I don't think anyone is going to believe these decisions were made out of anything other than cynicism and laziness. Worse still, it feels like creating the problem to sell the solution again. I just think there can't possibly be good faith in a system that tries to reconcile knights as their own faction in 500pt games. Post 7th all they've tried to do is make the game so stone stupid that anyone can sell it because there aren't any real restrictions at the end of the day. It's a card game with models now and we're all worse off for it. Posting pictures of actual boards with actual terrain is all I have left now, the game really has become battling over giant branded discs in the same terrible looking city until you just quit playing. That's the state of 40k. At least aos boards tend to look good. Sigh.
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
If GW trashing their rules is all it takes for you to want to cancel, you should have adopted the default video game pre-order stance to begin with - ie DON'T!
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
Nope.
10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
Nope.
10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.
Post hoc reasoning and sunk cost fallacy, same as it ever was indeed.
Most of us here have been through this dance before, many times. GW will change things; it will get balance wrong; they will make some mistakes that are just mindbreakingly baffling how they managed to do it; they will change things just because they can.
Most of us have adopted strategies to cope - using house rules; using magnets on optional weapon parts; collecting more models etc.
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
Nope.
10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.
Post hoc reasoning and sunk cost fallacy, same as it ever was indeed.
Companies pumping our sub par rubbish never learn their lessons if people keep giving them cash for sub par rubbish. Vote with your wallet.
The Inquisitorial henchmen points cost has different values for different models being added to it. Why could this not have been done across the board, and why did GW allow this one oddity to escape scrutiny?
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
Nah.
While edition isn't perfect by any means no edition ever is and as l don't pretend it's some competitive game not much changes anyway.
As is my armies changes very little. When focus is cool models and not spamming army is pretty stable over editions.
Yeah the only effect of cancelling my order would be that the 3rd-party store then sells that stock to someone else at a lower discount, probably within minutes. There's no world in which mountains of Leviathan boxes get returned to GW or affect the rules decisions in any way.
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
Nope.
10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.
Post hoc reasoning and sunk cost fallacy, same as it ever was indeed.
There is some sunk cost. I have an extensive collection of 40k on the shelf, acquired over the years. It also lets me weather these changes. I’ve also been magnetizing major stuff for about a decade now, which helps.
I played 9th exclusively with crusade games, using PL. Didn’t bother me. My first game I fielded my classic ML/F, basic boltgun sarge 1st squad of RTB01 marines that have been serving the Emperor for a long time now. After that game I spent the RP to rearm and reequip them to full melta, c-melta sarge with a powerfist. Do I feel bad that their role of minimal squad to hold objectives while more expensive units did the killing was made obsolete? Yes. But the game has moved on. I still play with the old guys from time to time, but newer units get more of the spotlight. Which is nothing new.
I still like the core way 40k plays. I still like the lore, universe, models, and even the rules. Not every aspect of all of them, but enough to keep me around.
The intrusion and escalation of NMNR bothers me. It’s taking real world issues and reflecting them into the universe where they don’t belong. The fact that it’s spread from wargear to unit size is one of my biggest gripes with 10th so far. For example, IMHO marines should be in squads of 5 or 10. That’s how The Codex organizes marines. I had picked up a box of BGVs to convert one into a captain and add the other 2 to the 3 from the indominus box to bring them up to the “correct” size. Going to have to re-jigger things now.
I’m not going to White Knight everything GW does. They screw up. Often. I’m also not going to drink the hateorade and rage quit. Things change with editions, as they do. I’ll shift how I build and play to match. Parts of it I’ll grumble about, and parts I’ll enjoy. But I’ll try not to let the bad parts overshadow the fun I’m having. Nothing is perfect, certainly not 40k. But for me, the silver linings outshine the clouds. So I keep playing.
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
did not pre-order in the first place as I don't blindly buy into anything GW releases
if this means that I don't get it because it sold out, well in most cases it turns out to be not worth it in the first place
even with cursed city it was that way and I can still get it from a store, just not worth if for the mediocre game it is
same now here, Leviathan is still available in some places, yet no reason for me to buy it or anything for 40k until I see the review of the first Codex books and than I am gonna wait for the factions I play and consider buying again (but chances are low)
Hoffa76 wrote: So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?
Nope.
10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.
Post hoc reasoning and sunk cost fallacy, same as it ever was indeed.
Huh?
How is that post hoc faulty reasoning (or any reasoning at all, for that matter)?
Nevelon is just describing the situation they’re in, and they’re not wrong. They are not giving their reasons why they keep playing. (Maybe they still enjoy the game). There are no sunk costs if you still like your miniatures, and enjoy using them.
And why shouldn’t they keep playing if they want to? Most people here will.
Souleater wrote: What is NMNR, please? I tried Google and came up with something to do with magnetic resonance imaging.
No Model, No Rules.
GW’s recent trend of clipping the options off of unit entries until the only thing you can legally put on the table in a list is the what comes in the box.
kodos wrote: yet we have Dastacards for models that don't exist, can be easily spotted as they show no model on the card
It’s not a consistent policy, just a worrying trend.
Some of those placeholder pictures are just because GW doesn’t have a unit painted up for the studio army with that option. Like vanguard vets on foot.
His Master's Voice wrote: If I ignore the cynic in me, I can see some merit in what GW is trying to do. A lot of the issues with 40k stem from its Rogue Trader era roots, that no longer connect well to the trunk of a game played on a very different scale. Tightening unit size and wargear options can, in theory, deal with or eliminate a number of old issues, like 1% options, MSU spam, entry bloat or time wasted on resolving 4 different weapon profiles per unit. There should be a sweet spot for 40k somewhere between skirmish and Epic in terms of granularity of rules and list building. Granted, the execution of this transition seems a touch haphazard and it will likely result in a game that some players might not be interested in any more, but it can result in one more in sync with its scale and therefore one that plays better.
Theoretically speaking.
I don't think anyone is going to believe these decisions were made out of anything other than cynicism and laziness. Worse still, it feels like creating the problem to sell the solution again. I just think there can't possibly be good faith in a system that tries to reconcile knights as their own faction in 500pt games. Post 7th all they've tried to do is make the game so stone stupid that anyone can sell it because there aren't any real restrictions at the end of the day. It's a card game with models now and we're all worse off for it. Posting pictures of actual boards with actual terrain is all I have left now, the game really has become battling over giant branded discs in the same terrible looking city until you just quit playing. That's the state of 40k. At least aos boards tend to look good. Sigh.
I always felt 7th and 8th was good editions apart from formations. 9th was so bloated I could barely play it.
Beer and Pretzel games that can be done in 2 hours is why I go back to 3rd edition and play 1500 points. Bigger table, less terrain, smaller unit footprints and bases. No rerolls, stratagems, WLT or secondaries also helps in just playing for the heck of it.
kodos wrote: yet we have Dastacards for models that don't exist, can be easily spotted as they show no model on the card
It’s not a consistent policy, just a worrying trend.
Some of those placeholder pictures are just because GW doesn’t have a unit painted up for the studio army with that option. Like vanguard vets on foot.
it is a trend since 5th Edition and GW not having a model ready for the pic is the same argument as they could not test the rules because they had no printed rulebook available
I’m not going to White Knight everything GW does. They screw up. Often. I’m also not going to drink the hateorade and rage quit. Things change with editions, as they do. I’ll shift how I build and play to match. Parts of it I’ll grumble about, and parts I’ll enjoy. But I’ll try not to let the bad parts overshadow the fun I’m having. Nothing is perfect, certainly not 40k. But for me, the silver linings outshine the clouds. So I keep playing.
I always felt 7th and 8th was good editions apart from formations. 9th was so bloated I could barely play it.
Beer and Pretzel games that can be done in 2 hours is why I go back to 3rd edition and play 1500 points. Bigger table, less terrain, smaller unit footprints and bases. No rerolls, stratagems, WLT or secondaries also helps in just playing for the heck of it.
I think 7th could have easily been refined into a much better edition. Yes, there was a lot of broken stuff, but most of it could be traced back to a handful of factors:
- The ally rules allowing a lot of broken combinations.
- The psychic phase. Oh dear God, the psychic phase. Especially when combined with the stupidly unbalanced power tables.
- Random! Random! Random! Random! Random! Random! Random!
- Super-Heavies and Fliers being shoehorned in and not at all balanced, so that many factions were left with no real way to deal with them.
Not by any means an exhaustive list, but fixing those would have immediately stripped away the most egregious offenders that made 7th nigh unplayable without house rules.
kodos wrote: yet we have Dastacards for models that don't exist, can be easily spotted as they show no model on the card
It’s not a consistent policy, just a worrying trend.
Some of those placeholder pictures are just because GW doesn’t have a unit painted up for the studio army with that option. Like vanguard vets on foot.
it is a trend since 5th Edition and GW not having a model ready for the pic is the same argument as they could not test the rules because they had no printed rulebook available
I think there are a few issues at work here, none of which are being handled consistently .
One is legacy support. How long do you include rules for minis out of print? Las/plas razorbacks were still the go-to choice while they had rules, which was quite a few editions after they went OOP. You don’t want to invalidate people’s collections, but it can be rough on new players who want to field options that went OOP before they were born. GW doesn’t want to open the door for 3rd party options, and kitbashing is not something everyone is capable or desires to do.
With how wonderfully cross compatible some ranges are (marines being a big one) NMNR is particularly galling. Why does a primaris captain need to pair a powerfist with a plasma pistol? Why not a fist and a rifle? Sargents can. It’s because that’s what the kit comes with. Captains should have almost full access to the armory, to take what they want. There is no in-universe reason for it. Sales/marketing intruding into the universe and breaking immersion. And as a modeler, I like kitbashing. NMNR puts the breaks on what I can do, if I still want to use my mini in the game.
Cutting options and restricting things has always been part of the game, but not at the silly level we are at now.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again until the heat death of the universe: Stop giving GW money for this total hogwash masquerading as a ruleset. Stop accepting mediocrity from a company so profitable they have no excuse for this level of laziness and contempt for the players. Stop assuming that because you already have the GW models you have to play the GW game, when there are a significant number of similar games that are manufacturer agnostic. Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot.
Come and play OPR, we have actual points *and* options...
MalusCalibur wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again until the heat death of the universe: Stop giving GW money for this total hogwash masquerading as a ruleset. Stop accepting mediocrity from a company so profitable they have no excuse for this level of laziness and contempt for the players. Stop assuming that because you already have the GW models you have to play the GW game, when there are a significant number of similar games that are manufacturer agnostic. Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot.
Come and play OPR, we have actual points *and* options...
As someone who monetarily supports OPR, shut the feth up.
MalusCalibur wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again until the heat death of the universe: Stop giving GW money for this total hogwash masquerading as a ruleset. Stop accepting mediocrity from a company so profitable they have no excuse for this level of laziness and contempt for the players. Stop assuming that because you already have the GW models you have to play the GW game, when there are a significant number of similar games that are manufacturer agnostic. Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot.
Come and play OPR, we have actual points *and* options...
As someone who monetarily supports OPR, shut the feth up.
why?
for the current mess of that game, until the majority of factions have their Codex there is no good reason to play Indexhammer instead of Grimdark Future
MalusCalibur wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again until the heat death of the universe: Stop giving GW money for this total hogwash masquerading as a ruleset. Stop accepting mediocrity from a company so profitable they have no excuse for this level of laziness and contempt for the players. Stop assuming that because you already have the GW models you have to play the GW game, when there are a significant number of similar games that are manufacturer agnostic. Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot.
Come and play OPR, we have actual points *and* options...
MalusCalibur wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again until the heat death of the universe: Stop giving GW money for this total hogwash masquerading as a ruleset. Stop accepting mediocrity from a company so profitable they have no excuse for this level of laziness and contempt for the players. Stop assuming that because you already have the GW models you have to play the GW game, when there are a significant number of similar games that are manufacturer agnostic. Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot.
Come and play OPR, we have actual points *and* options...
As someone who monetarily supports OPR, shut the feth up.
why?
for the current mess of that game, until the majority of factions have their Codex there is no good reason to play Indexhammer instead of Grimdark Future
Because it's nobody's business to tell others how to value their time and money or what they consider quality and that mindset and doing that actively drives people away from the product you're presenting as an alternative. It's part of why The 9th Age split the community rather than took it over, it's part of why people actively resist Mantic, etc. It's a terrible post and a terrible attitude
MalusCalibur wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again until the heat death of the universe: Stop giving GW money for this total hogwash masquerading as a ruleset. Stop accepting mediocrity from a company so profitable they have no excuse for this level of laziness and contempt for the players. Stop assuming that because you already have the GW models you have to play the GW game, when there are a significant number of similar games that are manufacturer agnostic. Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot.
Come and play OPR, we have actual points *and* options...
MalusCalibur wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again until the heat death of the universe: Stop giving GW money for this total hogwash masquerading as a ruleset. Stop accepting mediocrity from a company so profitable they have no excuse for this level of laziness and contempt for the players. Stop assuming that because you already have the GW models you have to play the GW game, when there are a significant number of similar games that are manufacturer agnostic. Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot.
Come and play OPR, we have actual points *and* options...
As someone who monetarily supports OPR, shut the feth up.
why?
for the current mess of that game, until the majority of factions have their Codex there is no good reason to play Indexhammer instead of Grimdark Future
Because people that can't stop gaking in the thread and hawking their system of choice every day come of like sleazy car salesmen, or at least as needy. It's just offputting to a lot of people, and smells of something between bitterness, buyer's remorse and schadenfreude. Everybody knows that there are a wealth of different systems available, no need to point it out at every conceivalbe opportunity and ad nauseam. If you actually want people to check out things you find awesome, make a good thread about how great they are and put a link in your signature, don't try to stir up gak in threads where it's off-topic. There are too many people running around and basically going 'neh-neh neh-neh, i play da betta system' at 40k players that tout how much greater HH2.0/OPR/whatever is, it becomes galling after a point.
AduroT wrote: Trying to convince people to hate what they like and like what you like instead will Never win people over to your game. It will only drive them away.
AduroT wrote: Trying to convince people to hate what they like and like what you like instead will Never win people over to your game. It will only drive them away.
AduroT wrote: Trying to convince people to hate what they like and like what you like instead will Never win people over to your game. It will only drive them away.
Not my fault you enjoy mediocrity.
Not our fault you mistake your subjective opinion for fact.
Because it's nobody's business to tell others how to value their time and money or what they consider quality and that mindset and doing that actively drives people away from the product you're presenting as an alternative. It's part of why The 9th Age split the community rather than took it over, it's part of why people actively resist Mantic, etc. It's a terrible post and a terrible attitude
so telling nobody that something else exists and they should all find out on their own how to handle that situation
yeah, I see how this works out with people complaining about how bad the situation is and with the conclusion that there are no other games to play so must make the best of it by buying a new army
specially as OPR is just a different ruleset for 40k, no one is losing anything they like by playing 40k with OPR rules
except those that like Powerlevel and alternate player turns with bad balanced indices
Because it's nobody's business to tell others how to value their time and money or what they consider quality and that mindset and doing that actively drives people away from the product you're presenting as an alternative. It's part of why The 9th Age split the community rather than took it over, it's part of why people actively resist Mantic, etc. It's a terrible post and a terrible attitude
so telling nobody that something else exists and they should all find out on their own how to handle that situation
yeah, I see how this works out with people complaining about how bad the situation is and with the conclusion that there are no other games to play so must make the best of it by buying a new army
Not what I said, and you know it. It's HOW they went about doing it and you know it. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
Because it's nobody's business to tell others how to value their time and money or what they consider quality and that mindset and doing that actively drives people away from the product you're presenting as an alternative. It's part of why The 9th Age split the community rather than took it over, it's part of why people actively resist Mantic, etc. It's a terrible post and a terrible attitude
so telling nobody that something else exists and they should all find out on their own how to handle that situation
yeah, I see how this works out with people complaining about how bad the situation is and with the conclusion that there are no other games to play so must make the best of it by buying a new army
Not what I said, and you know it. It's HOW they went about doing it and you know it.
I don't think it benefits anyone to follow this discussion further, not much sense in debating people that refuse to engage in good faith.
Because it's nobody's business to tell others how to value their time and money or what they consider quality and that mindset and doing that actively drives people away from the product you're presenting as an alternative. It's part of why The 9th Age split the community rather than took it over, it's part of why people actively resist Mantic, etc. It's a terrible post and a terrible attitude
so telling nobody that something else exists and they should all find out on their own how to handle that situation
yeah, I see how this works out with people complaining about how bad the situation is and with the conclusion that there are no other games to play so must make the best of it by buying a new army
Your opinion is just stupid. Seriously, only true idiots would ever value an opinion as poorly thought out as this. You need to come over and value my clearly superior opinion. It’s just plain better than your dumb opinion for dummies. Why anyone would value your wretched thoughts is a true mystery when my opinion is the only correct one.
AduroT wrote: Trying to convince people to hate what they like and like what you like instead will Never win people over to your game. It will only drive them away.
Not my fault you enjoy mediocrity.
Or your superiority isn't as superior as you think.
Certainly you are very bad salesman for your game doing more harm than good.
AduroT wrote: Your opinion is just stupid. Seriously, only true idiots would ever value an opinion as poorly thought out as this. You need to come over and value my clearly superior opinion. It’s just plain better than your dumb opinion for dummies. Why anyone would value your wretched thoughts is a true mystery when my opinion is the only correct one.
I can clearly see we things as people don't want a solution but just complain while to continue with it
so the true mystery is, why complain and call something bad, if you don't want it to change or are happy with it?
Overread wrote: Most of us here have been through this dance before, many times. GW will change things; it will get balance wrong; they will make some mistakes that are just mindbreakingly baffling how they managed to do it; they will change things just because they can.
Most of us have adopted strategies to cope - using house rules; using magnets on optional weapon parts; collecting more models etc.
Exactly! Also GW Game rules come a go so fast these days that by the time the complaining dusts have settled, it's the 11th!
1995 points, 22 models, and that's not even counting DA-specific Captain-equivalents
I thought there was a limit of characters or is that not a thing ?
There is a limit for Datasheets (max 3 of each), one for Epic Heros (max 1 of each) and a stipulation that you need at least one character in your army, but characters in total are not limited. And since SM have dozens of characters with minimally different datasheets, nonsense like the above is possible. In fact, it has been anticipated somewhat, as for example the 'One free Stratagem per battleround' skill most SM captains share is limited to one activation per battleround, not one per Captain.
I thought there was a limit of characters or is that not a thing ?
Must have 1, not more than 3 of each datasheet, only one of each Epic Hero. That's it.
It's definitely going to be a terrible list, but not entirely useless. 22 single-model units are going to make hiding pretty easy, and in a 2k army your opponent is going to have to prioritise their targets.
A lot of their abilities do still activate, although it will probably need an FAQ to see how many times Rites of Battle can be activated each turn (the army has 21 models with the ability, so you probably just won't need any CP, even though you'll get an additional one from Azreal)
Severe lack of anything capable of capping/holding objectives will mean you almost always lose, but you can pull some weird stuff like charging all 3 Firstborn captains into a unit and activating Finest Hour on all of them to turn them into blenders
Honestly if you cut it down to 500pts (6ish models?) I'd play a Herohammer force in a Boarding Action, might be fun
AduroT wrote: Your opinion is just stupid. Seriously, only true idiots would ever value an opinion as poorly thought out as this. You need to come over and value my clearly superior opinion. It’s just plain better than your dumb opinion for dummies. Why anyone would value your wretched thoughts is a true mystery when my opinion is the only correct one.
I can clearly see we things as people don't want a solution but just complain while to continue with it
so the true mystery is, why complain and call something bad, if you don't want it to change or are happy with it?
could also tell everyone else here to shut up
Telling someone the thing they like is garbage and to abandon it and come do the thing you like instead is Not Constructive. If that is all a person is going to do, then yes, I do think they need to just shut up. If you want to be constructive with suggestions how to fix things, or even just say hey if you’re mad at this as well come try this other thing and see if you like it, that’s Far more helpful. But again, just telling people they have mediocre opinions will win no one to your side. As it is I have no idea why I’d Want to try OPR if the player base is this toxic.
A lot of their abilities do still activate, although it will probably need an FAQ to see how many times Rites of Battle can be activated each turn (the army has 21 models with the ability, so you probably just won't need any CP, even though you'll get an additional one from Azreal)
Nah, Rites of Battle is pretty explicit about it:
Rites of Battle: Once per battle round, one unit from your
army with this ability can be targeted by a Stratagem for
0CP, even if another unit from your army has already been
targeted by that Stratagem this phase.
Note that it is Once per battle round ... one unit with this ability, not a unit with this ability
(It requires a Warhammer+ subscription 
)
. Thats the glass half full way to see it, yes.
