Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Powerlevel is also been confirmed as an average for the unit as well. Not looking good for this whole power level thing when there's like 3 different answers on it.

Q: Hey, Warhammer 40,000 I have a question about Power Levels. The Q&A that was released early on said that power levels are based on the unit with no upgrades, but there was a comment on this page that said they were based on the unit having all the upgrades they can take.

So which is it? I only ask because I'm watching people nerd fight on the internet over this issue and just want to give the argument the Emperor's Mercy. Thanks!
A: Hey [REDACTED] - a great question. We had a word with Simon from the rules team about this and he said:

"The Power Level represents an average somewhere in between the basic unit with the most basic loadout and the most tooled up unit of doom with all the upgrades. Basically, it's a mid-range average."

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Except your never going to be in range. If you bring a bunch of units filled with flamers people are going to sit back pop your transports first turn and then shoot you down as you slog forward at 9" a turn. Its not a viable strategy in the slightest.

Which is why I ignored that aspect. I just wanted to know it's raw potential. It's absolutely there.
That's honestly probably why Rubrics are costed so highly, because of the raw damage the Flamers are capable of doing.

Altho, don't fill me with bull either. Vehicles are tankier than ever, and if you go first it's a none issue for you to rush up the board.

Not to mention you should create so many high priority targets for your opponent that they might feel that a small squad of Rubrics are not a primary concern.
So yea, claiming "never" is empty and irrelevant.

I still stand that either Rubrics should have costed 1 point less, or that Interceptors should have costed like 2 more.

 Talamare wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Except your never going to be in range. If you bring a bunch of units filled with flamers people are going to sit back pop your transports first turn and then shoot you down as you slog forward at 9" a turn. Its not a viable strategy in the slightest.

Which is why I ignored that aspect. I just wanted to know it's raw potential. It's absolutely there.
That's honestly probably why Rubrics are costed so highly, because of the raw damage the Flamers are capable of doing.

Altho, don't fill me with bull either. Vehicles are tankier than ever, and if you go first it's a none issue for you to rush up the board.

Not to mention you should create so many high priority targets for your opponent that they might feel that a small squad of Rubrics are not a primary concern.
So yea, claiming "never" is empty and irrelevant.

I still stand that either Rubrics should have costed 1 point less, or that Interceptors should have costed like 2 more.

Yeah, I love the idea that he KNOWS people will just be popping transports all over the place first turn. Because yeah... we have seen enough weapon and vehicle profiles to know anything about how possible that would be.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also things like chaos daemons will allow you to summon them by way of keywords and if you're not in matched play you don't pay points ts for the side board.

Chaos daemons are not CSM and that has no bearing on the disscussion being had.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
How many spells can the inceptors counter in a round?

Point taken. Dosent make much of a difference though.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Last edition mark of tzeench gave a +1 to invulnerable saves, if that stayed the same then rubric marines would NEVER have less than a 4+ save. Meaning they will always have better saves against missiles, lascannons, melta guns, plasma guns, and all the other high strength good ap shooting that exists in the game.

As far as I can tell MoT and probably marks in general are not a thing. The 5++ comes from favored of Tzeentch which would be the mark maybe but your not going to get

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A tri-las predator destroys inceptors outright, but would be a horrible idea to throw at rubric marines since every damage above 1 is wasted and they'll have a 4++ in the open.

Thats amazing that have a 4++ with no evidence that they would have it and some evidence to the contrary.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
As for the banner, the rubrics are automitons, held together by sorcery. Similar units in AOS can take banners that return fallen members to life.

What units? Could it be undead units that are extreamly squishy? You are being dishonest. Stop it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Counter an extra d3 models returning for free every turn.

Asserting that some thing might be the case doesn't make a point espically aome thing that is ridiculous. I can do the same thing watch this. Chapter Tactics gives all marines a 2+ rerollable FnP

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have no clue what their wargear does, and I've seen what thematic and perfectly viable options are available to draw from as game mechanics.

We are missing the Icon. Thats it there is no reason to beleive that marks are still around you would see it as part of thier equipment on the data sheet if it was. Even if we dont know what 1 item is we can reasonably say its not going to near double Rubric offensive abilities.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
As has been stated many times this thread, the whining is unnecessary and we don't have enough information to actually back up your claim of imbalance.

Thanks that was super helpful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Except your never going to be in range. If you bring a bunch of units filled with flamers people are going to sit back pop your transports first turn and then shoot you down as you slog forward at 9" a turn. Its not a viable strategy in the slightest.

Which is why I ignored that aspect. I just wanted to know it's raw potential. It's absolutely there.
That's honestly probably why Rubrics are costed so highly, because of the raw damage the Flamers are capable of doing.

Altho, don't fill me with bull either. Vehicles are tankier than ever, and if you go first it's a none issue for you to rush up the board.

Not to mention you should create so many high priority targets for your opponent that they might feel that a small squad of Rubrics are not a primary concern.
So yea, claiming "never" is empty and irrelevant.

I still stand that either Rubrics should have costed 1 point less, or that Interceptors should have costed like 2 more.

Yeah, I love the idea that he KNOWS people will just be popping transports all over the place first turn. Because yeah... we have seen enough weapon and vehicle profiles to know anything about how possible that would be.

Your right im sure rhinos are going to be super durable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talamare wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Except your never going to be in range. If you bring a bunch of units filled with flamers people are going to sit back pop your transports first turn and then shoot you down as you slog forward at 9" a turn. Its not a viable strategy in the slightest.

Which is why I ignored that aspect. I just wanted to know it's raw potential. It's absolutely there.
That's honestly probably why Rubrics are costed so highly, because of the raw damage the Flamers are capable of doing.

Altho, don't fill me with bull either. Vehicles are tankier than ever, and if you go first it's a none issue for you to rush up the board.

Not to mention you should create so many high priority targets for your opponent that they might feel that a small squad of Rubrics are not a primary concern.
So yea, claiming "never" is empty and irrelevant.

I still stand that either Rubrics should have costed 1 point less, or that Interceptors should have costed like 2 more.

Killing a rhino first turn to make it so a unit of rubrics that spend pretty much the rest of the game trying to do something useful is worth it.

So you agree then good.

The axioms presented by the side claiming Inceptors are always better than Ksons are pretty questionable. Would it be desirable to have a points-based game in which 8 points of X, isolated from all other features of the game, should be equivalent, or even close to 8 points of Y, when the game's only played at 50+ points?

So yeah, Inceptors MIGHT be better at killing Ksons at all ranges (though I'll note the OP's team hasn't really responded to Earth127's maths) than the opposite - and that's assuming that the maths presented in support of this assertion is correct, and that none of the information we don't have is going to change it. Because of course ALL special rules and exceptions are always going to be equivalent, right? It's not like, for example, games with variable elements and factions ever have a faction that benefits more from buffs while another faction is composed of non-interactive specialists.

But whatever - in the interests of being charitable, let's say we accept the proposition on face value that ATSKNF and DTTFE have statistically equal effects, AND that those statistical effects apply equivalently across all possible tabletop permutations.

That still tells us what, exactly? That one should probably not try to engage Inceptors with Ksons, and that one should probably try to engage Ksons with Interceptors. Cool! That's a handy piece of in-game information. I guess in these games where I bring my eight five-man units of Ksons and the other guy brings his eight three-man units of Inceptors he's probably going to win. Because, after all, the game is only ever going to be about killing the other guy's models, and there are only ever going to be two model types, and myself and the other guy are strictly equal in our ability to make effective decisions in list building and then in using our models on the table.

All of that is to say that "all else being equal" is an overwhelmingly useless hypothetical to employ here, but it's also nonsense, since all else isn't equal - there are specific (and unspoken) assertions about the nature of the game baked into the plea that we take it as given that all else is equal. If the OP wants a world in which every single point is and ought to be equally comparable to every other single point without any room for judgement, decision making, scenario goal, opponent's force selection, or any other such thing - all that is being neatly (but fecklessly) packed into the word "context", I have the following game, and it's a great solo game! Opponents are just that messy context we don't want to consider after all.

One player rolls a casino-balanced die. One a 4+, the player wins.

Holy Terra... This thread. It literally is the parody of the gak-flinging contest that was supposed to happen when rules are released - both sides are so deep into their own asses that they can't hear anything outside of their echo-chamber

Longstrider wrote:
The axioms presented by the side claiming Inceptors are always better than Ksons are pretty questionable. Would it be desirable to have a points-based game in which 8 points of X, isolated from all other features of the game, should be equivalent, or even close to 8 points of Y, when the game's only played at 50+ points?

How are they questionable? Would it be describable that a metric used to balance be accurate? Yes, that was a pretty stupid question.

Longstrider wrote:
So yeah, Inceptors MIGHT be better at killing Ksons at all ranges (though I'll note the OP's team hasn't really responded to Earth127's maths) than the opposite - and that's assuming that the maths presented in support of this assertion is correct, and that none of the information we don't have is going to change it. Because of course ALL special rules and exceptions are always going to be equivalent, right? It's not like, for example, games with variable elements and factions ever have a faction that benefits more from buffs while another faction is composed of non-interactive specialists.

They are better at killing just about everything except T10+ not at all ranges TS are better in the 19-24 bracket although you wouldn't be able to tell since they almost never kill anything. Because Earth127's math is fething abysmal he got 1 MEQ killed by a unit shooting 18 S 5 AP -1 shots as best I can tell he made up numbers cause he thinks I did the same or has no idea what he is doing.

Longstrider wrote:
That still tells us what, exactly? That one should probably not try to engage Inceptors with Ksons, and that one should probably try to engage Ksons with Interceptors. Cool! That's a handy piece of in-game information. I guess in these games where I bring my eight five-man units of Ksons and the other guy brings his eight three-man units of Inceptors he's probably going to win. Because, after all, the game is only ever going to be about killing the other guy's models, and there are only ever going to be two model types, and myself and the other guy are strictly equal in our ability to make effective decisions in list building and then in using our models on the table.

That Inceptors have 2x the shooting and speed, have better deployment options, for the same or near the same price. No one is saying all Rubrics and all Inceptors.

Longstrider wrote:
All of that is to say that "all else being equal" is an overwhelmingly useless hypothetical to employ here, but it's also nonsense, since all else isn't equal - there are specific (and unspoken) assertions about the nature of the game baked into the plea that we take it as given that all else is equal. If the OP wants a world in which every single point is and ought to be equally comparable to every other single point without any room for judgement, decision making, scenario goal, opponent's force selection, or any other such thing - all that is being neatly (but fecklessly) packed into the word "context", I have the following game, and it's a great solo game! Opponents are just that messy context we don't want to consider after all.

Player decisions (judgement and decision making) would be based on skill and knowledge of the player which is supposed to be the determining factor. Scenario goal can be swapped between armies so you can't point to that as a balance tool. Opponent's force is supposed to be balanced via metrics (PL and points). Anything other then skill and knowledge should be minimized. The fact that income plays a role in how well your army will preform is by far one of the most annoying part of the balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kandela wrote:
Holy Terra... This thread. It literally is the parody of the gak-flinging contest that was supposed to happen when rules are released - both sides are so deep into their own asses that they can't hear anything outside of their echo-chamber

Thanks that was helpful.

So, how do the Exalted Sorcerers, Scarab Occult, unique psychic powers, and Legion rules stack up?

Oh wait. You have no idea.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

They are better at killing just about everything except T10+ not at all ranges TS are better in the 19-24 bracket although you wouldn't be able to tell since they almost never kill anything. Because Earth127's math is fething abysmal he got 1 MEQ killed by a unit shooting 18 S 5 AP -1 shots as best I can tell he made up numbers cause he thinks I did the same or has no idea what he is doing.

MEQ
Normal 18 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 4
Cover 18 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/3 = 2.66

TEQ
Normal 18 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/3 = 2.66
Cover 18 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 1/6 = 1.33

So even vs TEQ it's more than 1. Interceptors just have better guns, but it's pretty obvious that they do.
Rubric Marines are literally Marines with Faux-Plasma Rifles.

Interceptors have not 1, but 2 Effective Heavy Weapons each. The comparison honestly feels like 3 Crisis Suit vs 5 Fire Warriors.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Killing a rhino first turn to make it so a unit of rubrics that spend pretty much the rest of the game trying to do something useful is worth it.

Pointlessly debatable as there are far, FAR too many variables to consider. Worst part is the argument is pointless since I never cared about how practical it was, just the raw potential of the flamers it carries. Concede.

Yaknow, this whole argument here is totally moot even before you THINK about the fact that we don't know for sure what DttFE does, or what icon of flame does, or the fact rubrics can deny spells and inceptors cant, or that we got faction-spesific spells we KNOW exist, and could make the asp sorcerer that much more potent.

You know why?
Because power level is a really, REALLY vague estimate of power, and nothing to be taken seriously in any competitive level, or in any way indicate point costs.

Lets run a shot analysis of units of give power levels and known costs-shall we? (I'm taking some of it directly off a post I made in another forum)

The inceptors cost 53 each, so a team is 159.
Divide by 8, you got 19.875 points per power level.
The intercessors are 24 points each, so 120 a team-and power level 6. so they are 20 points per power level. pretty close.

Other known factor, the hellblasters, 40 each power level 12. so we hit 16.666 point per power level.
That's...a bit off. like, 15% off.
It seems like 1 power level=roughly 16-20 points? seems about right?

The captain though, power level 7 and costs 148, so that's 21.143 points per power level.
So, a PL is worth somewhere between 16.666 and 21.143?
So...power level and points so not translate all that easily. we got a huge divergance in PL to point ratio, and we were just looking at a handful of units from one very specific line.
we got 4.46 points-per-power-level difference between our highest and our lowest example-and these might not be the biggest edge cases, because once more we only saw Numarines, and only some of them to boot.

Its a VERY rough outline, one that should never be used to compare units if you know your stuff. 4.46 difference between current edge cases, rounding down to 4 means the rubric squad might cost 127 while half- equipped, and still be within power level logic.
So, 127 points might be the same 8 PL as 159 points, despite 148 points being lower 7 PL, and 120 being 6 PL.

Get what I'm going at?
The power level is wonky. its really rough, and it only scales properly in saying the ARMIES are roughly the same scale, and useless for individual units.


And to top it off-we have yet to actually seen mission rules.
If "only troops score" returns, that would skyrocker the estimated PL of every troop unit, and unlike inceptors, rubrics are troops.

 n0t_u wrote:
Powerlevel is also been confirmed as an average for the unit as well. Not looking good for this whole power level thing when there's like 3 different answers on it.

Q: Hey, Warhammer 40,000 I have a question about Power Levels. The Q&A that was released early on said that power levels are based on the unit with no upgrades, but there was a comment on this page that said they were based on the unit having all the upgrades they can take.

So which is it? I only ask because I'm watching people nerd fight on the internet over this issue and just want to give the argument the Emperor's Mercy. Thanks!
A: Hey [REDACTED] - a great question. We had a word with Simon from the rules team about this and he said:

"The Power Level represents an average somewhere in between the basic unit with the most basic loadout and the most tooled up unit of doom with all the upgrades. Basically, it's a mid-range average."

Call me biased since I was the one who bothered them about it to get this answer, but I'm betting on this version of where they got the points from than the other two.

On a different note there was some confusion a ways back on why Rubrics would protentiall get extra attacks: it,s not a "chainsword thing" but rather the rumored effects of "Death to the False Emperor", which, if rumor is true, gives CSM an extra attack on a to-hit roll of a 6.

According to Warhammer Fest players ATSKNF rerolls Battleshock tests.

Hope that clears those up.

Yeah, I'd say the only thing this thread really proves is that power levels aren't as balanced as points. But we already knew that.

I highly doubt that Rubrics are going to be 53 points per model, even if they are paying for a psyker.

Of course, I'd also bet that their sorc can learn spells other than Smite. He is a psyker after all. If you told me with a straight face that a Primaris Psyker should only cost 5-6 points because he has the same statline as a Guardsman, I'd have to excuse myself from the room so I can stop laughing.

 ross-128 wrote:
Yeah, I'd say the only thing this thread really proves is that power levels aren't as balanced as points. But we already knew that.

I highly doubt that Rubrics are going to be 53 points per model, even if they are paying for a psyker.

Of course, I'd also bet that their sorc can learn spells other than Smite. He is a psyker after all. If you told me with a straight face that a Primaris Psyker should only cost 5-6 points because he has the same statline as a Guardsman, I'd have to excuse myself from the room so I can stop laughing.

And yet that is exactly what The OP and a number of others are trying to say.
Also I would no discount smite: an 18" range mortal wound with a 5/6 chance of working hurts.
And then there is the multiwounds of the froce weapon that makes the TS win the combat. see my math on page 2.

Also my math is correct except for Shooting vs MEQ:
inceptors deal 4 wounds in range as talamere calculated.
TS have 2,5 in rapid fire range (9*(2/3)*(1/2)*(5/6)).

Note I share the criticism that all calcualtions are averages only and don't take distribution into account but I don't know enough chance math to caculate those.

 Kandela wrote:
Holy Terra... This thread. It literally is the parody of the gak-flinging contest that was supposed to happen when rules are released - both sides are so deep into their own asses that they can't hear anything outside of their echo-chamber

It's hard to stay polite and objective when OP is basically operating on the following premises as far as I'm concerned.

Power levels are equal to points and allow a making an definitive judgement on balance.
Balance/value of a unit is determined entirely by the ability to kill the opposing unit. Unit roles, ability to lock down objectives, etc are not a thing.
Inceptors and rubrics are the only units to exist, there is no conceivable reason for either to ever engage another unit.
Not knowing all the facts has no bearing on the value of a unit. Neither core rules, detachment rules or wargear/unit special rules have a snowballs chance in hell to skew the balance in one units' favour,
because GW said the game will be perfectly balanced and there is no reason to believe that might not be case or that GW has a proven track record of that absolutely not being the case.
There is also no way for rubrics to EVER engage inceptors on their terms, since Inceptors will ALWAYS deepstrike next to rubrics and make their charge and they will NEVER whiff. There is absolutely nothing the rubric player can do about it.

So yea under those premises the rubrics are indeed worthless.
No way they could get an advantage by being troops or having more bodies and loosing less combat efficiency per model loss or simply being better at something that is not based on killing prowess.
No way that there will be a detachment/special rule that makes them amazeballs and no such buff for inceptors. That's never happened right?
No way that they might end up a lot cheaper than inceptors because power level don't translate 1:1 into points. It's not like some of our currrent banners cost more as much as a rhino or those that those warpflamers almost afford you one.
We also have no idea how they point things, a master crafted sword now costs FOUR times as much as a power sword, who's to say that banner won't cost an arm and a leg but will be amazing? And that power sword is three time cheaper than it is now, we simply have no idea on points.
They could easily end up with 50+ points worth of options rolled into that power level for all we know, but apparently we know for certain that rubrics will not improve drastically when we get all the rules.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also things like chaos daemons will allow you to summon them by way of keywords and if you're not in matched play you don't pay points ts for the side board.

How many spells can the inceptors counter in a round?

Last edition mark of tzeench gave a +1 to invulnerable saves, if that stayed the same then rubric marines would NEVER have less than a 4+ save. Meaning they will always have better saves against missiles, lascannons, melta guns, plasma guns, and all the other high strength good ap shooting that exists in the game.

A tri-las predator destroys inceptors outright, but would be a horrible idea to throw at rubric marines since every damage above 1 is wasted and they'll have a 4++ in the open.

As for the banner, the rubrics are automitons, held together by sorcery. Similar units in AOS can take banners that return fallen members to life.

Counter an extra d3 models returning for free every turn.

You have no clue what their wargear does, and I've seen what thematic and perfectly viable options are available to draw from as game mechanics.

As has been stated many times this thread, the whining is unnecessary and we don't have enough information to actually back up your claim of imbalance.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

Every indication is that Mark of Tzeentch no longer does that, meaning Rubrics have a mere 5++. Not bad, but not as good as a 4++.

Banners in AoS return units if you roll a 1 on Battleshock, not automatically. HUGE difference.

We actually do know what the majority of their wargear does-it's pretty much just the banner that's still a mystery.

We have somewhere around 85% of the info on these guys-not enough to be perfectly accurate, but MORE than enough to start drawing comparisons.

And again-the few things we don't know would have to double or triple Rubric's efficiency to bring them on par with Inceptors.

Tri-Las Predator math, by the way.

4 shots.
2.67 hits.
1.78 wounds on Inceptors.
1.48 wounds past the saves.
One or two dead Inceptors, most likely.

4 shots.
2.67 hits.
2.22 wounds on Rubrics
1.48 past the saves.
One or two dead Rubrics, most likely.

So yeah, it's slightly better against the Inceptors, granted. And if it's T7, Rubrics are better suited to killing it (although the sheer NUMBER of shots Inceptors get might outweigh that).

If it's T8, though, Inceptors will have a much easier time killing it.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also things like chaos daemons will allow you to summon them by way of keywords and if you're not in matched play you don't pay points ts for the side board.

Chaos daemons are not CSM and that has no bearing on the disscussion being had.

With the keyword system they're possibly reunited again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
So, how do the Exalted Sorcerers, Scarab Occult, unique psychic powers, and Legion rules stack up?

Oh wait. You have no idea.

They stack up as "worse than the Interceptors", duh.

40k Facebook page said Khorne Daemonkin works under the new system by sharing the Chaos and Knorne rules to unit inside of a single FOC.

Tzeentch Daemons would likewise unit with TSons under Tzeentch and Chaos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smite plus Rubric shooting should actually drop 2 Inteceptors a turn. All three if you get lucky on your rolls for Smite since Mortal Wounds overflow.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
40k Facebook page said Khorne Daemonkin works under the new system by sharing the Chaos and Knorne rules to unit inside of a single FOC.

Tzeentch Daemons would likewise unit with TSons under Tzeentch and Chaos.

I'm curious what kind of effect that has on our daemonic units. That was a pretty significant change from normal csm.

 Roknar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
40k Facebook page said Khorne Daemonkin works under the new system by sharing the Chaos and Knorne rules to unit inside of a single FOC.

Tzeentch Daemons would likewise unit with TSons under Tzeentch and Chaos.

I'm curious what kind of effect that has on our daemonic units. That was a pretty significant change from normal csm.

They can share Tzeentch and Chaos themed rules, but not the Ones specific to Traitor Astartes and Daemons with each other.

Pyrovores are as good as scatbikes because Flyrants exist. Right?

And yet I'm still not allowed to have an Inquisitor and Stormtroopers in the same detachment without loosing command points.

Thbbbt.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And yet I'm still not allowed to have an Inquisitor and Stormtroopers in the same detachment without loosing command points.

Thbbbt.

They share he Imperium keyword, so yes you can.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Roknar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
40k Facebook page said Khorne Daemonkin works under the new system by sharing the Chaos and Knorne rules to unit inside of a single FOC.

Tzeentch Daemons would likewise unit with TSons under Tzeentch and Chaos.

I'm curious what kind of effect that has on our daemonic units. That was a pretty significant change from normal csm.

They can share Tzeentch and Chaos themed rules, but not the Ones specific to Traitor Astartes and Daemons with each other.

I was referring to dameons of khorne possessed and warp talons. That change just made so much sense, even having both the mark and daemon of khorne since a possessed is effectively two entities in one.
Hopefully we'll keep that,except now also with other gods.

As far the storm troopers, I believe you can mix them but you only get faction benefits if have one or the other. That is you would get all imperial abilities but neither inquisition nor scions benefits.
Having an all scions detachment would give you imperial AND scion abilities, but you don't loose command points for mixing.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And yet I'm still not allowed to have an Inquisitor and Stormtroopers in the same detachment without loosing command points.

Thbbbt.

Ehh... you can. It's called patrol detachment.

I'd say the biggest unknown is that we don't know what 8e psychic powers will do.

What if Warp Speed lets the TSons squad get 3 extra attacks per model and always strike first in combat? Suddenly they've turned into a CC powerhouse, especially with 3 extra attacks on that force sword.

What if Endurance gives them all a 4+FNP? That would be pretty strong when stacked with their invulnerable save.

And then there's all the stuff in Divination. Re-rolls to hit from Prescience, overwatch at full ballistic skill from Foreboding, re-rolling saves with Precognition, and Rending with Misfortune.

Invisibility is probably either going to be gone or not nearly as strong considering all the problems it caused in 7e, but Shrouding might still grant a cover bonus.

Now sure, the Sorcerer is a level 1 psyker (probably anyway), so he can only pick one of those (unless bonus Primaris Powers are still a thing). But he gets to pick at the start of any game, so he can pick based on what the opponent has. That makes any psyker a huge wildcard.

 n0t_u wrote:
They stack up as "worse than the Interceptors", duh.

Aside from the ongoing debate, that's not how you balance a faction. Asymmetry is acceptable.

Maybe you can use a Sorcerer HQ to kill Inceptors, and use the Rubric troops to tackle the HQ. In this case it's just whining about rock beating scissors, when you aren't considering paper.

Games need to be balanced holistically. It really doesn't matter if Inceptors outshoot footslogging Rubrics. There's a lot of other factors to consider.

 Kandela wrote:
Holy Terra... This thread. It literally is the parody of the gak-flinging contest that was supposed to happen when rules are released - both sides are so deep into their own asses that they can't hear anything outside of their echo-chamber

By which you mean consistently citing the actual math showing the rubric's fire power isn't on par with the power 8 interceptors, and is barely on par with power 7 plague marines? Pointing out the gap is large enough a single icon is unlikely to bridge the gap unless it literally doubles the wounds inflicted in most situations?

What point has been brought up besides the constant icon+chapter tactics, which is incredibly unlikely to bridge the gap.

I've even gone so far as to point out a combination (tsons can ignore/mitigate perils so smite spam, plus icon doing something, buts them only a bit behind inceptors overall) that might explain them being in the same bracket, even if the gap between the low end of power 8 and the upper end is fairly extreme.

 Roknar wrote:

 Kandela wrote:
Holy Terra... This thread. It literally is the parody of the gak-flinging contest that was supposed to happen when rules are released - both sides are so deep into their own asses that they can't hear anything outside of their echo-chamber

It's hard to stay polite and objective when OP is basically operating on the following premises as far as I'm concerned.

Power levels are equal to points and allow a making an definitive judgement on balance.
Balance/value of a unit is determined entirely by the ability to kill the opposing unit. Unit roles, ability to lock down objectives, etc are not a thing.
Inceptors and rubrics are the only units to exist, there is no conceivable reason for either to ever engage another unit.
Not knowing all the facts has no bearing on the value of a unit. Neither core rules, detachment rules or wargear/unit special rules have a snowballs chance in hell to skew the balance in one units' favour,
because GW said the game will be perfectly balanced and there is no reason to believe that might not be case or that GW has a proven track record of that absolutely not being the case.
There is also no way for rubrics to EVER engage inceptors on their terms, since Inceptors will ALWAYS deepstrike next to rubrics and make their charge and they will NEVER whiff. There is absolutely nothing the rubric player can do about it

Points and power levels should be linked, meaning a huge gap in effectiveness for equivalent power levels is not promising.
I've done a breakdown showing that rubrics are worse at killing everything than inceptors. Yes, ability to kill enemy models is kinda a big deal in this game. We've also seen the core rules, so if troops get obj secured or some equivalent it was not worth mentioning in there.
Again, I've compared both units to others. Even in rapid fire range, inceptors are always the better choice for killing anything.
We have the core rules, the vast majority of the war gear, and all the unit special rules. We lack only the icon and the potential detachment rules.
Yes, a unit with half the move speed and no extra deployment options will generally not be engaging a unit with over twice the mobility and the ability to deep strike, on terms favorable to the former. This goes on to illustrate how rubrics in generally aren't as useful. Mobility was extremely important last edition, I fail to see why it wouldn't be now.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
They stack up as "worse than the Interceptors", duh.

Aside from the ongoing debate, that's not how you balance a faction. Asymmetry is acceptable.

Maybe you can use a Sorcerer HQ to kill Inceptors, and use the Rubric troops to tackle the HQ. In this case it's just whining about rock beating scissors, when you aren't considering paper.

Games need to be balanced holistically. It really doesn't matter if Inceptors outshoot footslogging Rubrics. There's a lot of other factors to consider.

Rubrics don't actually tackle anything better though. That's the point. Inceptors consistently out damage them against every single type of target.

 Charistoph wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Tyran wrote:
The only function of power is to be able to quickly make a game without worrying about making a list. The simple fact that it doesn't considers weapons or upgrades should tell you how useless it is for actual balance.

Power is considering that fact that all upgrades are taken for the power point listed.

Power doesn't really considers that, because you cannot assume that the units being used will have all the upgrades or weapons. And there are units whose entire role is dependent on upgrades and weapons.

Better question, why would the Power Rank NOT be made without all those upgrades that unit size allows for?

Power is designed as a guide so players can play a game with almost no prep time, and I don't know you but my models don't go around with all the possible weapons and upgrades, and I imagine it is the same for most players. This means that most players are not going to play with all the possible weapons and upgrades for the simple reason they don't have the models built that way. Power is the ultimate expression of GW's "beer and pretzels" and it isn't mean to be balanced, because you only need a glance to know that people can break the system by fielding all the upgrades and weapons, but who wants to play with that people?

Tyran wrote:For example Tyranid termagants, there is literally a difference of 3 times the firepower between a devilgant and the standard version, and they are going to have the same power cost.

Sure they do, NOW. But in a month or so, will they be so different in the new datasheets? We've seen that Power Weapons are more balanced out between Str bonus and AP then they have ever been. Aside from GW's normal ability to shoot itself in the mouth through its foot when it comes to balance, what tells you to assume that there will be such an actual power difference between the different GunGants?

Honestly I doubt it, in part because I don't see them giving them bonus AP to gaunts, and there is also the issue of biomorphs.

 Kandela wrote:
Holy Terra... This thread. It literally is the parody of the gak-flinging contest that was supposed to happen when rules are released - both sides are so deep into their own asses that they can't hear anything outside of their echo-chamber

I'm with you on this one. I'm lucky to live so far away from the people involved here.

I've said to myself so many times, stop bothering it's not getting anywhere.

Then I see another thread...