Breng77 wrote:
I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Spoiler:

My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Tactical Marine Squads don't have an option to buy bolt guns or bolt pistols on their sergeant they come with both. As for melta-bombs maybe they went up in points we don't know. It isn't hard to believe they could be 7 points as well.

As for the multi-melta It is as good at wounding every toughness except 9 (and 18 if it exists) so the strength is much more of a wash than the extra AP from the melta 3+ save is a 6+ against the lascannon so that wounds 16% less. This matters even more with cover melta ignores cover more. Consistent damage vs range I would again say may well be a wash. It is easy enough to get a multi-melta into range (transports, Drop pods). I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.

But that's just my wishlisting talking.

Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.

I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.

Breng77 wrote:

To me it is just the opposite, costing things the way you suggest makes the drop pod less flexible because it is only appropriately costed for its most efficient use. Whereas a multi-melta benefits from the availability of various transport options.

 Ratius wrote:
I have a feeling grenades have been fazed out all together too - barring one or two very specific units having them.

Points and Power
Q: Essentially 8th edition means no more free stuff. You want that daemon, you are paying for that daemon. I love it. I also notice that GW isn't trying to have games with fewer models, but rather have more dynamic things happen to models more quickly to keep play to 2 hours. It's a pretty sly move to make sure model sales stay high. I see it being a successful strategy. If I can play 3000pts in 3 hours, I'd better buy a few new tanks...
A: "You want that Demon? You gotta pay for that demon". I want that on a T-shirt.

Q: Seems reasonable enough. STOP BEING SO REASONABLE, HOW ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS?
A: Ed, we profusely apologise for being so reasonable.

Q: So that's a big ol Tyranid nerf then.
And GSC too

Sad bois
A: Joel, you should know we have alerted the Inquisition of your latent psychic powers, as demonstrated by your ability to see the future before it has been revealed.

The Black Ships are on the way...

Q: Here's a summary for anyone that doesn't have time to read the article.

Points. They exist.
A: We need you in our editing dept.

Q: I wish this piece had a real example of how points would be formatted. It's not too complicated to look for points in a different part of the book in AoS, because they're broad like power levels, but I can't fathom a clean way to do granular points of each upgrade in a different part of the book. Would have been nice to see an example.
A: Fair feedback - we will see what we can do in the future.

Q: "The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book."

Why? The less a player has to flick through a book the better.
A: So we can alter points in the future without having to alter the whole data sheet. Also, the data sheet it valid for open and matched play too, which tend not to use points as much.

Q: I actually like the idea of power levels for narrative or quick games. I understand why points are seperate from datasheets for updating and balance reasons, but it seems weird to have to look at multiple pages/books just to put together one unit for a list.
A: It's entirely so we can update and tweak points without changing the entire datasheet. It's a good thing for a fluid game.

Q: So you just committed on balance. Thanks a lot that was the one thing I was missing in 7th edition! That and the ability to transport Kill kanz in Pikk Upp Trucks.
A: Killa Kans in Trukks? I'm seeing them falling through the floor of the Trukk in a Flintstones-esque situation...

Q: I like the ideas about changing points but what about when the team misses the mark on something and it is not an issue of points but rules. Will we see the team willing to consider changing data sheets too and not just points?
A: Great question. In the brave new world of New Games Workshop™, I reckon that would be a high priority.

Q: Very cool! Love how summoning will work now! Never summoned myself, but been on the receiving end... hopefully i'll be able to walk straight after playing demon lists now!
A: Bad images.

Q: The more I read the more I like the coming of the 8th edition. Despite my initial scepticism and I really liked 7th. Now I can't wait to get it on my hands. GWs really doing a good job! For the emperor
A: That kinda talk will get you promoted, trooper!

Q: This is great I think. Best of all worlds. Being able to adjust points when units start to dominate tournaments is a masterstroke. really REALLY like this.
A: We thought it made sense.

Q: I would assume Tervigons would also have to pay points for spawning termagantes since it is similar to summoning albeit with some key differences, any chance you guys can correct my assumptions before they're turned into reckless uncertainties?
A: We hate it when wild assumptions spawn into reckless uncertainty! We haven't seen the rules yet, but it's a pretty safe bet there will be no "free" models in the game going forwards.

Q: Speaking of summoning. Will my Bearers of the Word still be able to call upon daemonic allies? How does summing work exactly? Let's say it's turn 3 and I have 150 points set aside for summoning, do I just buy a daemon unit for that many points that turn and they auto come in? Will it be similar to a pyschic test?
A: More on that to come later; you'll see...

Q: This looks fantastic! Will the books be a little better laid out then the current codexes? I feel as if I need to flip through 4 sections just to find the wording on a rule with the currents books.
A: We have tried to tackle that in the new edition for sure. The datasheets are a great step forwards for that.

Q: So, now my big hope is for a faction spotlight on the Sororitas. Cmon Warhammer 40,000, show a little faith!

Spoiler:

A: It's happening. Have faith, Brother Devon!

Q: Love that you guys are thinking to the future! Love everything so far about 8th. Hesitant about character rules, but more than that just wish I had 8th to play right NOW! Super excited!
A: We want this game to be around a long time.

Q: Does this mean Tervigons could possibly become troop transports instead of Brood Mothers?
A: We don't know until we see the Tyranid Focus! Coming soon...

Q: Wait a second... GW is actually going to be doing active changes to the point values of certain units/gears? Active tweaking to the game beyond that of FAQ's?

Well hot damn.
A: That's the plan...

Q: How long GW's? How long must we sit in anticipation for this epic goodness?
A: It's coming soon.. real, real soon™...

Q: Will Tervigon's spawned Termagants count as "summoning"? Will you need to keep some points apart for them?
A: Well, we reckon you want to hold out and wait for the Tyranid Faction Focus, which is burrowing it's way here quicker than a claustrophobic Trygon.

Q: This is great stuff! So am I reading this right that summoning will be different from deep striking in 8th edition?
A: It could well do. More information on that coming in the future.

Q: "each of those Tactical Marines would cost 13 points each, " Fresh in from the Derpartment of Redundancy Dept.

I. LOVE. The change to summoned units counting towards overall army point cost. This'll nerf Tervigon and Daemon-summoning armies to manageable levels.

Also, can I beg a Tyranid faction focus article?
A: Of course you can, Pete. It will be with you once the Tervigon has belched it from it's burgeoning belly.

Q: Actual relatively sensbile quiestion: When the app comes out with army builders in it, any chance of a Windows version for those of us with laptops rather than tablets?
A: No word on the app yet, Ed, but we can but hope! Watch this space for news when we get it.

Q: Will there be printed "codexes" in this new format? I'm less concerned about the rules and more concerned about all the new fluff. For example my Space Wolf codex is WAY behind on lore and I would be curious to learn what the Sons of Russ have been up to since Cadia.
A: That would be very cool. We haven't heard about what books are coming yet or how, but we do know codexes in a format similar to the current one are being planned. Watch this space for more!

Q: Can we, potentially, be given an example of summoning and it's respective costs in a future article? Perhaps tying that in to however you write up regarding Daemons?

While being vague is fine, it would be helpful to have something to actually read directly.
A: We will see what we can do.

Q: Hi GW - do we have any idea how often balances passes will be made for points costs? Obviously anything more often than "once per 2-5 years with each codex release" is great, but will it be a thing of regular online patch notes, or still hinge on a less frequent release of a physical product - I.e., an annual re-release of the 40k General's Handbook?
A: No idea at the moment, Alex - we will have to see when it happens. Watch this space for more as and when we get it.

Q: Cool. Glad to see the demise of "free stuff". So will other forces be able to "spawn" new units if they have the points - thinking Tyranid Tervigon, Necron Canoptek Spyder, Genestealer Cult Summons?
A: Great question, Martin; I guess we will just have to wait and see!

Q: Would also love to see if Tyranids get upgrades that even then out against other armies like how they adapt in the books and like 4th ed.
A: Truly terrifying monsters? Huge combat attacks? Devastating shooting... Tyranids will be juuust fine.

Q: Would love some more info on necrons on how they will work and reanimation protocols
A: Hey Ellis - look out for the Necron Faction Focus article, coming soon...

Q: Hey GW, will be see a blood angels faction focus? I ask because my..eh... friend, whos in hospital, really wants to know
A: Tell your friend that they won't have long to wait! For the article, we mean... not for treatment. We hope. Get better soon!

Q: 27 pts for a multi melta? Oh my. That is not cheap! lol
A: You pay for what it's worth... and yup , it's worth it.

Q: Just asking,you wrote ordinary points will come in another book.
I hope you are not planning of releasing it after 1 year as you did for age of sigmar with the General Compendium.
A: Not at all. Full points on release for all units.

Q: So using power points you can equip whatever you want to your squads, how does that not stop imbalance?
A: That's right. The Power Level assumes you are taking a pretty souped up version of that unit. You should feel free to take anything you like on that unit if you are playing Power Levels.

Q: 27 points for a multi-melta? Damn, they must be nasty now!
A: Ooooooh yes.

Q: Sounds cool! Love the power levels for quick fun play.

Thanks for the cost for tact marines. Could we see a similar breakdown for Rubrics to see how power levels and points scale? Curious to see how my beloved Rubrics stand up point wise. Thanks!
A: Tell you what, Scott.. we will write all the rules for all the Chaos models down and make them available to you on the launch!

We wish we had room to show you every unit in the game, but alas, it is not so.

Q: But what if their power level is ALREADY 9000!?!?!?
A: OVER 9000?!?!

Q1: You were 33 minutes late!
A1: We're sorry! Did we make up for it with an awesome article?
Q2: No orks info. So no.
A2: Ork info, huh? Ok... they're super awesome in combat now. More on that later!

Q: I am so excited and I just can't hide it.
A: We're about to to balance the game and I think I like it.

Q: How does a Tervigon work? Do I need to set points aside?
A: I guess we will see more on that in the Tyranid Focus article, winging this way faster than an impatient Haruspex.

Q: Veeery curious how my daemonkin are going to survive
A: By collecting lots of skulls...

Q: wow you guys were late today, I almost gave up
A: Sorry! Technical issues.... not us being divas and arriving late, we promise...

Q: How many models do you need for a power level of over 9000?
A: ....OVER 9000?!

*resists meme*

Q: Sorry when I see the phrase "power level" I think DBZ
A: Yeah, that joke's been mentioned OVER 9000 times.

Q: 27 points? 7 points?! MY OCD. WHY YOU DO DIS
A: Ha! TI's because that's exactly what it's worth!

Q: Hey GW will we see any dark eldar articles?
A: Of course we will, loyal citizen of Commorragh.

Breng77 wrote:

 Brother Xeones wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.

It depends that thinking still requires you to have range with your other weapons for that to matter. So I think it is limited use that you will have range and LOS to lots of high value targets when both your bolters and lascannon have range and a multi-melta would not.

 Red Corsair wrote:

I am assuming a LC gets more shots on average from turn one because it will based on range. It makes more sense for me to assume range will get me more shots on average then for you to assume shots starting turn 1 on a short range item.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Brother Xeones wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.

It depends that thinking still requires you to have range with your other weapons for that to matter. So I think it is limited use that you will have range and LOS to lots of high value targets when both your bolters and lascannon have range and a multi-melta would not.

A smart player can no longer rely on MSU alone to make your shooting inefficient. The best way so far from what we have seen is going to be using range bands to restrict your targets. That makes the LC a much stronger choice since those tac marines can shoot their small arms where they are at their bast, close range on soft targets, while the LC dude can reach across the table an hit that higher durability target. The MM doesn't have that, so a smart opponent can out range the MM. It's a major benefit in the new rules that I think your undervaluing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Breng77

I am assuming a LC gets more shots on average from turn one because it will based on range. It makes more sense for me to assume range will get me more shots on average then for you to assume shots starting turn 1 on a short range item.

I think once again your adding in the benefit of drop pods. I'll reiterate what I already said, drop pods should cost more because they are an upgrade granting mobility, it makes no sense to price a MM at a higher cost because a drop pod exists. You said this makes drop pods less flexible and that's true, and that's the point. A drop pod should cost based on it's roll, getting things into range, I would argue taxing a MM because a pod exists makes the MM less flexible since now I am paying that tax even if I want to run my guys on the ground.

EDIT: I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree once again Always a great time sharing ideas with you though I am still betting a LC cost more btw

Breng77 wrote:

Will agree to disagree. Really I'm assuming that 30" (move + shot) can net me some kind of target turn 1. If not certainly turn 2. Or that shooting out of a rhino will get me more movement etc. I'm not saying you might not get 1 extra shot, just not 4 times as many. I figure I will be shooting the multi-melta starting turn 2 at the latest until it dies. Now you can argue it might die faster, and you could factor that into a lascannon advantage. I'm thinking the lascannon will be similar in cost to the Multi-melta as it costs 20 points now and I don't see it having gained more than 7 points in value. Then again I'd like to see each valued differently in different squads as lascannons might be better in a devastator squad, but not as good in a tactical squad.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Multi-melta could also be even stronger than just a range upgrade over the melta.

 Rotary wrote:
Eldar info already. Seems they are still the favored xenos. I'd love to hear a little about orks and nids.

 Rotary wrote:
Eldar info already. Seems they are still the favored xenos. I'd love to hear a little about orks and nids.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Multi-melta could also be even stronger than just a range upgrade over the melta.

 Rotary wrote:
Eldar info already. Seems they are still the favored xenos.

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Multi-melta could also be even stronger than just a range upgrade over the melta.

True that. 2nd ed meltagun isn't that spectacular and mm isn't just range. Also better armour pen and TEMPLATE which was huge. Tank busting isn't due to extra strength at short range but the template makes for nasty tank busterx

Q: I like the ideas about changing points but what about when the team misses the mark on something and it is not an issue of points but rules. Will we see the team willing to consider changing data sheets too and not just points?
A: Great question. In the brave new world of New Games Workshop™, I reckon that would be a high priority.

GW wrote:Q: How does a Tervigon work? Do I need to set points aside?
A: I guess we will see more on that in the Tyranid Focus article, winging this way faster than an impatient Haruspex.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Have we seen the profile for multimelta's yet? I think if they work more like the new interpretation of twin linked over the standard double range as the model does have 2 barrels, then would make sense why they are so expensive.

tneva82 wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Have we seen the profile for multimelta's yet? I think if they work more like the new interpretation of twin linked over the standard double range as the model does have 2 barrels, then would make sense why they are so expensive.

Nope. Only meltagun has been seen.