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.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I also don't like split fire everywhere. I liked the fact that weapons had to be in batteries of a kind for effectiveness.

Why? Each model is an independent platform, not a gun platform locked to all the others in its unit.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:It doesn't make sense for a gun battery to have one antitank gun, one antiair gun, and one machinegun, though.

1) A squad is not a battery. That was a very artificial construct in this game.

2) It depends on how you define "a battery". Gun batteries in old fortresses and on sailing ships where not required to fire at the same target. The batteries internal to turrets on later ships were configured that way, but many of the 14-16 inch gun turrets as well as 5 inch guns that were standard on battleships and cruisers also carried .50 cal and 20mm AA batteries on top of them which kept their fire on incoming aircraft, not the ships that were turret's targets.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Split fire, I think, makes it seem more like a collection of individuals than a squad.

This is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to what is being made available here. Split Fire only allowed for one model to shoot at a separate target, no matter how many carried the rule. This new rule is so much better at it.

 TheIronCrow wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Is anyone else worried that they're just pandering now? It seems like everything people have been demanding for years is coming to fruition, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, its just a worry in that whatever people ask they will receive, which is a terrible idea. Not everything people have been demanding is even close to a good idea. Some is great, but others are just bad ideas in general and I'm worried about seeing all of the terrible ones alongside the good.

Its a big problem I hope GW can recognize quickly. Sadly a lot of people in the hobby are incredibly lazy and don't try to adjust their tactics to deal with new things (scatbikes is a huge example) and then just whine to GW until it gets changed. So when GW opens up the community feedback page its going to be flooded with tools that couldn't get out of a wet paper bag without being told how 30 times and people that try and suggest the stupidiest game mechanics possible. Essentially the vocal minority is going to bitch until GW does something about it, which in this day and age needs to desperately go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blackmage wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Youn wrote:
I guess that is one way of nerfing Scatterlasers, Assualt cannons and Psycannons.

I don't know about that. Sure Scatter lasers will wound T4 Marines on a 3+ instead of a 2+, but they wound Dreads and even larger vehicles on 5+ now.
Knights are almost assuredly not going to exceed T11, so a mass of Scatter laser fire can make a good dent in those 20+ wounds it has, whereas before they couldn't even tough the front AV.
I, for one, see this as a better balance rather than an all out nerf. Scatterbikes will still have their place, but now so will Shuricannon bikes (which seem likely to be AP -1)

hope they wont let play "mass" of scatters, that's the only way to really "nerf" that weapon.

Or and I know this is crazy, stop sucking at the game and change your tactics. Seriously if you cant deal with scat bikes you are the one with the problem.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you're this aggressively unpleasant AND when you open your argument with 'people who aren't me are lazy lol'.

Personally, I think GW listening to any of YOUR ideas would be much more damaging to the game and the community as a whole than listening to anyone else's.

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Galef wrote:

GW has already confirmed that everyone's armies will be playable
-

I think they said they'd have rules for all models--I don't believe they promised every army would be playable as they are not (in terms of playstyle) or that every option available now would be available in 8E.

Doubtful they start to remove that weapon option while still allowing entire armies of LOW's. Would seem kinda funny.

ERJAK wrote:

 TheIronCrow wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Is anyone else worried that they're just pandering now? It seems like everything people have been demanding for years is coming to fruition, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, its just a worry in that whatever people ask they will receive, which is a terrible idea. Not everything people have been demanding is even close to a good idea. Some is great, but others are just bad ideas in general and I'm worried about seeing all of the terrible ones alongside the good.

Its a big problem I hope GW can recognize quickly. Sadly a lot of people in the hobby are incredibly lazy and don't try to adjust their tactics to deal with new things (scatbikes is a huge example) and then just whine to GW until it gets changed. So when GW opens up the community feedback page its going to be flooded with tools that couldn't get out of a wet paper bag without being told how 30 times and people that try and suggest the stupidiest game mechanics possible. Essentially the vocal minority is going to bitch until GW does something about it, which in this day and age needs to desperately go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blackmage wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Youn wrote:
I guess that is one way of nerfing Scatterlasers, Assualt cannons and Psycannons.

I don't know about that. Sure Scatter lasers will wound T4 Marines on a 3+ instead of a 2+, but they wound Dreads and even larger vehicles on 5+ now.
Knights are almost assuredly not going to exceed T11, so a mass of Scatter laser fire can make a good dent in those 20+ wounds it has, whereas before they couldn't even tough the front AV.
I, for one, see this as a better balance rather than an all out nerf. Scatterbikes will still have their place, but now so will Shuricannon bikes (which seem likely to be AP -1)

hope they wont let play "mass" of scatters, that's the only way to really "nerf" that weapon.

Or and I know this is crazy, stop sucking at the game and change your tactics. Seriously if you cant deal with scat bikes you are the one with the problem.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you're this aggressively unpleasant AND when you open your argument with 'people who aren't me are lazy lol'.

Personally, I think GW listening to any of YOUR ideas would be much more damaging to the game and the community as a whole than listening to anyone else's.

Im going to agree with you on this. Saying people can't adjust tactics to things like massed scatbikes is assuming you had the tools in the first place. Armies Orks and Guard simply do not have adequate tools to deal with a massed long range weapon weapon that can actively stay away from you while also getting a reliable 3+/4+ save. You can only do so much with what you have. GW has acknowledged this and that seems to be one of the reasons they are leveling the playing field. Anyone with half a brain can say LOL L2PLAY when instead you can look at the top players in the world and notice its only Eldar bike spam, gladius grav bomb/superfriends, and Daemon Monstermash lists in the top 50 lists, with nary a guard, sister, tyranid, ork, blood angel player in sight outside of those ridiculously talented die hards who got lucky (or totally surprised their opponents, like the lictor list)

tneva82 wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Galef wrote:

GW has already confirmed that everyone's armies will be playable
-

I think they said they'd have rules for all models--I don't believe they promised every army would be playable as they are not (in terms of playstyle) or that every option available now would be available in 8E.

Doubtful they start to remove that weapon option while still allowing entire armies of LOW's. Would seem kinda funny.

I think it's going to depend on if they provide a model for it or not.

Honestly, I wonder if we're going to be seeing Multitrackers and Spike Rifles in the army list entries (whatever the name will be). Will Tacticals still have access to the Bolt Pistol and Grenades, or will they only need to be armed with the Boltgun?

How many armies are built today with certain detachment bonuses in mind that will be invalidated by the price schema and detachment options? Just the loss of Formations means that those who built Strike Forces, Warhosts, and Decurions will be scrambling to see how they can fit their stable in to the new allowances.

This might actually be wonderful for melee armies.
You know you're going to delete the unit you are planning on charging, spend your bullets elsewhere. No more will msu rule the roost due the chance of being carelessly plugged and broken by a unit that has no real interest in them beyond a place to deposit shells on their way into melee.

When I first saw the chart I had flashbacks to the WS chart of yore.

This could make blob-guard army finally useful for something other than tarpitting. Before they would have wounded Plague Marines and Bikers on a 6, now they wound them on a 5+, and can now chip low-wound tanks to death.

I love this new method of scaling damage. S4 T4 actually feels like an adequate level up from S3 T3.

 Charistoph wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I also don't like split fire everywhere. I liked the fact that weapons had to be in batteries of a kind for effectiveness.

Why? Each model is an independent platform, not a gun platform locked to all the others in its unit.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:It doesn't make sense for a gun battery to have one antitank gun, one antiair gun, and one machinegun, though.

1) A squad is not a battery. That was a very artificial construct in this game.

2) It depends on how you define "a battery". Gun batteries in old fortresses and on sailing ships where not required to fire at the same target. The batteries internal to turrets on later ships were configured that way, but many of the 14-16 inch gun turrets as well as 5 inch guns that were standard on battleships and cruisers also carried .50 cal and 20mm AA batteries on top of them which kept their fire on incoming aircraft, not the ships that were turret's targets.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Split fire, I think, makes it seem more like a collection of individuals than a squad.

This is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to what is being made available here. Split Fire only allowed for one model to shoot at a separate target, no matter how many carried the rule. This new rule is so much better at it.

A battery is a artillery formation, roughly equivalent to a company in size, with 6 to 12 guns. I guess a 3-gun Lascannon section isn't exactly a gun battery, nor really is a 3-gun Basilisk section.

Forced concentration of fire isn't realistic, so I guess split fire everywhere isn't bad. I just liked it because it gave a reason not to squadron up tanks and guns of different types.

Combining information we have available in relation to Scatbikes:

Probable -1 to hit modifier if bike moves.
New to wound chart wounds MEQ on a 3+ rather than a 2+

It reduces the chance to hit and to wound. Scatbikes won't go away as it will still be a useful weapon as it can send massed shooting into low toughness models as well as high toughness models. However, I also think powers like Guide and Doom will be even more critical. If Eldar players can't cast multiple Guides (pure speculation based on what I read about AoS), then throwing Guide on a min sized Scatbike squad would be less desirable than a larger squad (or even another unit). This could also impact the spam of min sized squads.

IF all that comes to fruition, I think it really tones down the near no brainer choice for massed Scatbikes. And this does not even include changes to Jetbike movement.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:A battery is a artillery formation, roughly equivalent to a company in size, with 6 to 12 guns. I guess a 3-gun Lascannon section isn't exactly a gun battery, nor really is a 3-gun Basilisk section.

Exactly. The requirements for an individual squad are hardly the same as a support gun position.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Forced concentration of fire isn't realistic, so I guess split fire everywhere isn't bad. I just liked it because it gave a reason not to squadron up tanks and guns of different types.

Fair enough, just don't try to push it as making any kind of sense, otherwise. It really is a ridiculous requirement when you consider how people would normally operate.

So the million dollar question for tomorrow, can independent characters still join units? I'll bet no they can not join a unit during the game.

However given that things like Lychguard, command squads, and tyrant guard would seem pretty silly without being able to help your warlord, I imagine that most factions will allow you to buy bodyguards for your warlord, and they will be considered a unit for the entire game. This will hopefully be as close as 8th ed gets to deathstars.

I was kinda of hoping they wouldn't give split fire to everyone. That really weakens threat saturation as a tactic, and removed another hard choice for shooting armies. Between this and being able to walk out of assault, is there anything left in shooting armies that can't be done with a flow chart?

 Charistoph wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:A battery is a artillery formation, roughly equivalent to a company in size, with 6 to 12 guns. I guess a 3-gun Lascannon section isn't exactly a gun battery, nor really is a 3-gun Basilisk section.

Exactly. The requirements for an individual squad are hardly the same as a support gun position.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Forced concentration of fire isn't realistic, so I guess split fire everywhere isn't bad. I just liked it because it gave a reason not to squadron up tanks and guns of different types.

Fair enough, just don't try to push it as making any kind of sense, otherwise. It really is a ridiculous requirement when you consider how people would normally operate.

Basilisk sections and Lascannon sections are support gun units, though, and that was what I was referring to in the first place. I had the formation scale off by one level, but the point is the same.

The 3-gun support elements shouldn't be mix-and-match with a Autocannon, Lascannon, and Heavy Bolter, and there shouldn't be ordnance sections with a Basilisk, Medusa, and Griffon.

Now that I think about it, I'm not actually sure what element the Heavy Weapons Sections are. They seem analogous to the machine gun and mortar platoons that are at the company level in most of the force org charts I see, but at the platoon. I guess having an artillery section integrated into the platoon level units would allow for more immediate support and closer tactical coordination between the rifle elements and the support elements.

 Sarigar wrote:
. If Eldar players can't cast multiple Guides (pure speculation based on what I read about AoS), then throwing Guide on a min sized Scatbike squad would be less desirable than a larger squad (or even another unit). This could also impact the spam of min sized squads.

Why you think they can't cast? Some eldar specific or do you think each power can be cast only once period regardless of number of psykers? If so that contradicts this:

The new system is much more scalable – meaning that the phase works well at any size of game, with any number of psykers running around.

If there's literally limit on how many psychic powers you can cast then that's not exactly scalable...Actually it's opposite of scalable. Psychic powers would have bigger impact the smaller the game basically.

Another thing I noticed, is that the article mentions models in a squad may fire at different targets. Models, not different weapons. So that makes me wonder if models like Terminators with Stormbolter and Cyclone MIssile Launcher, or several types of Tau Battlesuits in a squad with different weapon load-outs get some rule to split the effectiveness of their different weapons even further? Guess we'll have to wait and see individual model/squad rules.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
Another thing I noticed, is that the article mentions models in a squad may fire at different targets. Models, not different weapons. So that makes me wonder if models like Terminators with Stormbolter and Cyclone MIssile Launcher, or several types of Tau Battlesuits in a squad with different weapon load-outs get some rule to split the effectiveness of their different weapons even further? Guess we'll have to wait and see individual model/squad rules.

I think you're probably right on this one, individual battlesuits can then target more than one unit.

You know, it occured to me that this model based split fire actually nerfs MSUs. One of the greatest strengths of MSU is that you have to allocate all of the squads firepower to eliminate it, which may result in wasted shots due to overkill.
With split fire though, you can divide the shots in such a way that damage is spread across multiple units, thereby assuring that no overkill occurs.

So that idea that MSUs are going to be optimal due to the changes to morale just became more implausible.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, it occured to me that this model based split fire actually nerfs MSUs. One of the greatest strengths of MSU is that you have to allocate all of the squads firepower to eliminate it, which may result in wasted shots due to overkill.
With split fire though, you can divide the shots in such a way that damage is spread across multiple units, thereby assuring that no overkill occurs.

So that idea that MSUs are going to be optimal due to the changes to morale just became more implausible.

a) that simply puts them in bit more equal. Advantage is STILL in MSU. Not as big as without split fire but it doesn't remove the stone cold fact that new morale hurts bigger units more than MSU units(even the +1 for over 10 doesn't compensate fully. 20 sized squad loses one model, has +1 boost. Compared to all the extra casualties you will be suffering that +1 helps but doesn't negate disadvantage).

Especially since you don't really want to cause dripple damage here and there.

It's not even overkill that's biggest help for MSU but the fact that after you beat LD in battleshock _every casualty you cause kills ANOTHER model_. That's the killer. And big units are obviously more vulnerable. Unit of 5 with LD6. After you have killed 6 models every casualty causes another model(in practice you start to see that effect after 3 wounds or so already though you could get lucky).

6 casualties so...Unit of 5 doesn't care. It's already dead. 10? You basically wiped out 10 model squad with 6 casualties.

Or with 5 casualties: 5 unit is dead but no battleshock casualties. 10 sized? You suffer 0-5 extra casualties based on d6 roll.

You do not WANT to split more than neccessary.

MSU has been optimal since rogue trader and so far changes have been more MSU friendly than not. Excepting total far off surprises biggest things that remain to be seen is command points(how and what) and point costing(maybe 40k takes page from HH)

 Galef wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

hope they wont let play "mass" of scatters, that's the only way to really "nerf" that weapon.

GW has already confirmed that everyone's armies will be playable and since the Windrider kits comes with enough scatter lasers for every bike, this isn't going away.
Even if they make Elite Black Guardian Windirders the only unit that can have all Scatters (and thus restrict the Troops to 1 per 3), we already have seen a detachment that is heavy on Elites.

But I do think that changing the To-wound chart as it will be in 8th combined with the fact that Scatters are heavy and Relentless is likely gone, and vehicles will have more than twice the wounds as they once had HPs AND they have Armour saves now, Scatterbikes will be far from the "auto-win" units that they were in 7th.

-

i bet 100$ you will not have anymore so large amount of scatters on bikes...the fact an army will be playable doesn't mean it will play like in 7th, or there is no reason to play a new edition.

 blackmage wrote:
i bet 100$ you will not have anymore so large amount of scatters on bikes...the fact an army will be playable doesn't mean it will play like in 7th, or there is no reason to play a new edition.

Maybe it won't be as effective(but then again if game is balanced shouldn't that also be viable...) but you can play them(or GW is lying). They won't be invalidating anybodys unit of 6 scatter bikes.

tneva82 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
i bet 100$ you will not have anymore so large amount of scatters on bikes...the fact an army will be playable doesn't mean it will play like in 7th, or there is no reason to play a new edition.

Maybe it won't be as effective(but then again if game is balanced shouldn't that also be viable...) but you can play them(or GW is lying). They won't be invalidating anybodys unit of 6 scatter bikes.

Or they will be expensive, if scatter lasers on jetbikes go up to say 25 points per model they may no longer be an attractive option to take one on each bike. Especially if bikes no longer have move and fire heavy weapons at full bs. a 42 point model that shoots at BS 4+ may not be near as attractive to take in large quantities. So a squad of 6 would cost 252 points (at current bike costs) For 24 S6 AP - D 1 (maybe) shots. So 90 additional points to what it is today.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
i bet 100$ you will not have anymore so large amount of scatters on bikes...the fact an army will be playable doesn't mean it will play like in 7th, or there is no reason to play a new edition.

Maybe it won't be as effective(but then again if game is balanced shouldn't that also be viable...) but you can play them(or GW is lying). They won't be invalidating anybodys unit of 6 scatter bikes.

Or they will be expensive, if scatter lasers on jetbikes go up to say 25 points per model they may no longer be an attractive option to take one on each bike. Especially if bikes no longer have move and fire heavy weapons at full bs. a 42 point model that shoots at BS 4+ may not be near as attractive to take in large quantities. So a squad of 6 would cost 252 points (at current bike costs) For 24 S6 AP - D 1 (maybe) shots. So 90 additional points to what it is today.

Over the years I have seen Rogue Trader, Second Edition, and all the intermittent editions up until 7th. Each time something about the Dark Angels changed. Each time the army was still playable. Perhaps people needed to adjust their play style a bit, sometimes (the dreaded Assault Cannon/Cyclone Missile Launcher Terminator) they even had to chop up their models. But the army in general was still playable. So now, maybe, they will limit Scatter Lasers back to the 1-in-3 or 1-in-5 ratio most other squads get their special squad support weapons or heavy weapons in. Most, not all, but still. Such a change often comes at a price, and I can already hear the cry of outrage when Scatter Lasers become 1-in-5 instead of 'Everybody gets one!'. But the army as a whole is still playable.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
i bet 100$ you will not have anymore so large amount of scatters on bikes...the fact an army will be playable doesn't mean it will play like in 7th, or there is no reason to play a new edition.

Maybe it won't be as effective(but then again if game is balanced shouldn't that also be viable...) but you can play them(or GW is lying). They won't be invalidating anybodys unit of 6 scatter bikes.

Or they will be expensive, if scatter lasers on jetbikes go up to say 25 points per model they may no longer be an attractive option to take one on each bike. Especially if bikes no longer have move and fire heavy weapons at full bs. a 42 point model that shoots at BS 4+ may not be near as attractive to take in large quantities. So a squad of 6 would cost 252 points (at current bike costs) For 24 S6 AP - D 1 (maybe) shots. So 90 additional points to what it is today.

Over the years I have seen Rogue Trader, Second Edition, and all the intermittent editions up until 7th. Each time something about the Dark Angels changed. Each time the army was still playable. Perhaps people needed to adjust their play style a bit, sometimes (the dreaded Assault Cannon/Cyclone Missile Launcher Terminator) they even had to chop up their models. But the army in general was still playable. So now, maybe, they will limit Scatter Lasers back to the 1-in-3 or 1-in-5 ratio most other squads get their special squad support weapons or heavy weapons in. Most, not all, but still. Such a change often comes at a price, and I can already hear the cry of outrage when Scatter Lasers become 1-in-5 instead of 'Everybody gets one!'. But the army as a whole is still playable.

Haha, remember when the inquisition/GK Crusaders had "power weapons" and the rules changed and made what kind of power weapon you had actually make a difference? FAQ said "if it says power weapons, it's whatever the model holds." And everyone hacked the swords off their crusaders and replaced them with... was it axes? mauls? Something. Then they were suddenly "power swords" and the MFA crowd was less than pleased.

 Purifier wrote:
Haha, remember when the inquisition/GK Crusaders had "power weapons" and the rules changed and made what kind of power weapon you had actually make a difference? FAQ said "if it says power weapons, it's whatever the model holds." And everyone hacked the swords off their crusaders and replaced them with... was it axes? mauls? Something. Then they were suddenly "power swords" and the MFA crowd was less than pleased.

I do remember. In a way, changes like these, added to bought-model-efficiency, are the reason why a lot of people including me tend to magnetize at least the arms and/or weapon options on generic characters such as Space Marine Captains. No need to hack, glue different bits, and repaint. Even adding the flexibility to use a Powerfist one game, and a Powerspear the next.

Also, GW noted there will be 'new rules' for all miniatures, and changing the squad make-up (subtracting or increasing maximum squad sizes, changing weapon options, etc.) falls under the category of new rules to me.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Basilisk sections and Lascannon sections are support gun units, though, and that was what I was referring to in the first place. I had the formation scale off by one level, but the point is the same.

The 3-gun support elements shouldn't be mix-and-match with a Autocannon, Lascannon, and Heavy Bolter, and there shouldn't be ordnance sections with a Basilisk, Medusa, and Griffon.

Now that I think about it, I'm not actually sure what element the Heavy Weapons Sections are. They seem analogous to the machine gun and mortar platoons that are at the company level in most of the force org charts I see, but at the platoon. I guess having an artillery section integrated into the platoon level units would allow for more immediate support and closer tactical coordination between the rifle elements and the support elements.

That sounds like you have more personal issues with the army building system then the shooting system.

Most people have setup those units precisely to combine that fire. But take an Infantry Squad or a Tactical Squad. They often have a mixed weapon set. Sure, you can set them up that the Special and Heavy Weapons are complimentary, but they still aren't the same Weapon with the same range and profile. Infantry Squads are the most common types of units in the game, so why are we to treat them as a battery?

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
. If Eldar players can't cast multiple Guides (pure speculation based on what I read about AoS), then throwing Guide on a min sized Scatbike squad would be less desirable than a larger squad (or even another unit). This could also impact the spam of min sized squads.

Why you think they can't cast? Some eldar specific or do you think each power can be cast only once period regardless of number of psykers? If so that contradicts this:

The new system is much more scalable – meaning that the phase works well at any size of game, with any number of psykers running around.

If there's literally limit on how many psychic powers you can cast then that's not exactly scalable...Actually it's opposite of scalable. Psychic powers would have bigger impact the smaller the game basically.

You quoted the part where I indicated that it was pure speculation based on what I read about AoS. I am referring to if an army can only cast a power once. Today, another rule from AoS seems to have been drawn into 40K; characters no longer able to join units. It is me looking at AoS rules and wondering what else will be adopted by 40K.

You can have multiple psykers on the table, but that is not a 100% guarantee they can cast the same powers. Again, this is speculation.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
A str3 lasgun should not damage a t7 vehicle/mc.

It's fine. The possibility is there to encourage bad players to make bad choices.

 Sarigar wrote:
You quoted the part where I indicated that it was pure speculation based on what I read about AoS. I am referring to if an army can only cast a power once. Today, another rule from AoS seems to have been drawn into 40K; characters no longer able to join units. It is me looking at AoS rules and wondering what else will be adopted by 40K.

You can have multiple psykers on the table, but that is not a 100% guarantee they can cast the same powers. Again, this is speculation.

True but I look at what GW HAS said. If one power could only be cast once that would mean they flat out lied already by claiming non-scalable system is scalable. It scales to neither direction.

we will see, but i bet anything , we will not see again 20+ scatterbikes in standards tournaments play