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.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So...are we freaking out over power levels because that's the only news today, or did we forget that they were mentioned in the original Q&A GW did?

Beause it's old hat and all we really learned is where the preverbial ruler that is the Tactical Space Marine sits in the new edition.

It's pretty tame today. It's all we really have to talk about though.

I'm trying to draw out interesting nuggets as best I can!

This is definitely an article that would have worked well with a Faction Focus to go with it since there is so little to digest.

The good news is we can start judging where things fall in the new edition thanks to the Tact Marine info.

Regarding an earlier prediction about Rubrics: I'm betting on cheaper instead of the same costs. AP3 weapons became -2 Rend which gives anything with a 4+ or better a save instead of negating anything that isn't a 2+. This tones down how many models that can kill in a round of shooting, and makes them more generalist than before. I could see them dropping into the upper teens with the change for the Rubrics proper (say about 18 points each) since they still have perks over Tacts, but don't have the faster movement and may not have pistols (since we see no listing on what each model comes with base it's hard to tell. Looks like we got a modified datasheet to withhold some information).

So some buffs, but some nerfs to make them cheaper and more likely to see the table, and in greater numbers. At least that's my guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

theocracity wrote:
To me, the difference between Power Levels and Points is like the difference between cooking and baking. In baking it's real important to use the exact amount in the recipe, or else you're going to end up with a mess. In cooking, you can be a little looser about what you add to the pan and still have the end result taste good.

If you're trying to create the perfect cake of a competitive tournament, you use points. If you're just whipping something up as an experiment for dinner with friends, you can cook with power levels.

My mother would disagree, but she is the kind of heretic witch that can somehow estimate ingrediants and bake a cake successfully without formal measuring.

I like that analogy, Theo.

One more point: a lot of people are saying power levels are for new players, which is correct. But it's also for hobbyists who just want to get models on the table and have some fun without needing a binder, a calculator, and an up-to-date knowledge of the meta to play.

There's a lot more of us out there than you'd think, and having a rough measuring stick of army power drops the barrier to showing up at the local store with your models and dice substantially.

My mother would disagree, but she is the kind of heretic witch that can somehow estimate ingrediants and bake a cake successfully without formal measuring.

Something tells me your mother would have been a terror with the old Guess range artillery dice.

With the broad similarity in rules, part of me is wondering if any Chaos Daemon units will resemble their Age of Sigmar counter-parts in function?

I kind of hope so as I just bought a metric crap-ton of Slaanesh stuff for AoS, and would love to see it being a viable rush-down, close-combat, army in 8th.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

This is definitely an article that would have worked well with a Faction Focus to go with it since there is so little to digest.

The good news is we can start judging where things fall in the new edition thanks to the Tact Marine info.

Regarding an earlier prediction about Rubrics: I'm betting on cheaper instead of the same costs. AP3 weapons became -2 Rend which gives anything with a 4+ or better a save instead of negating anything that isn't a 2+. This tones down how many models that can kill in a round of shooting, and makes them more generalist than before. I could see them dropping into the upper teens with the change for the Rubrics proper (say about 18 points each) since they still have perks over Tacts, but don't have the faster movement and may not have pistols (since we see no listing on what each model comes with base it's hard to tell. Looks like we got a modified datasheet to withhold some information).

So some buffs, but some nerfs to make them cheaper and more likely to see the table, and in greater numbers. At least that's my guess.

Somewhat hilariously they all hit on 3s in melee now.

You're right about being a generalist. Their damage smoothed out into a nice curve. I wonder if one of those keywords still keeps them from doing overwatch.

I'm happy to see the two list building methods. We have a relatively small playing group here and we'd love to have more people join us but many of them are scared off by the complexity of the game currently. One guy plays but he doesn't "get" the list building part so he has us build him TAC lists so he can just focus on learning the game right now. Power levels seems like they'd be nice for getting new players into the game quickly and for beer and pretzel games with friends. It's a simpler alternative to matched play points that will still offer a level of balance, not as much as matched points play but "good enough" that the game won't be a ridiculous stomp. The game still hinges on other factors such as player tactics and dice rolling so for a fun game power level should be adequate enough to use.

For pick-up games at the local FLGS I'd still pre-write a list to bring with matched points, it's the safer bet for balance after all and I'd expect almost all tournies to run the matched point system. At the end of the day both systems are given to us and if you don't like one of them you're free to not use it (I suspect many players will write off power points right at launch which is fine). If I read things right it seems even if you run power levels your list building is still restricted by the FOC so that's another balancing factor that should stop some ridiculous lists. It's not like running power levels is like agreeing to play unbound after all.

Maybe the multi-melta won't be Heavy at all, and will instead be Rapid Fire? One shot at 24" or two shots at 12" with no penalty for moving? That would be worth a lot of points.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
If you're trying to create the perfect cake of a competitive tournament, you use points. If you're just whipping something up as an experiment for dinner with friends, you can cook with power levels.

My mother would disagree, but she is the kind of heretic witch that can somehow estimate ingrediants and bake a cake successfully without formal measuring.

I've generally found baking to be very forgiving. I might not always get exactly what I was originally thinking, but it's almost always something good.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems likely that a lot of the time people would want to throw in cool toys for narrative play, so units would tend to have lots of upgrades. If they are assigning Power Level points with the assumption of lots of upgrades then it doesn't seem like it would be a big problem unless there was a fluff reason for someone to take very few upgrades.

For excessively large games, I'm liking power level as an alternative. When I'm throwing down a marine company plus support elements, it seems wrong to be deliberating as to whether or not that squad is getting a lascannon or ML based on the points. Apoc-level games take long enough to play, if we can do setup and army building in a few minutes without too much delving then it's a win.

Normal points are still good for smaller-scale games, but if my friends want to do a 2v2 5000 point game because we hate our free time, then this simplifies things a lot.

I feel like the article didn't give much except hint at point balancing for heavy weapons and give us some other points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Probably to reclarify the difference between the two because people just can't seem to grasp the difference

 Rippy wrote:
I feel like the article didn't give much except hint at point balancing for heavy weapons and give us some other points.

Well they are basically teasing. if they gave everything out before the release it wouldn't be nearly as satisfying... right?

 Ronin_eX wrote:
For excessively large games, I'm liking power level as an alternative. When I'm throwing down a marine company plus support elements, it seems wrong to be deliberating as to whether or not that squad is getting a lascannon or ML based on the points. Apoc-level games take long enough to play, if we can do setup and army building in a few minutes without too much delving then it's a win.

Normal points are still good for smaller-scale games, but if my friends want to do a 2v2 5000 point game because we hate our free time,then this simplifies things a lot.

You have free time? How could you!

The articles so far have been all teaser and snippets.
Most interesting was the full TS datasheet.

Dont forget its still a month to release and they've said they will cover all faction snippets before that (15 armies?).

Not to mention GMCs, chariots, artillary, grenades, Apoc/suppliment ideas and cover mechanics!

Has no one think about kids who begin the play i am sure they don't need a precise points system to learn and have fun

As someone who runs a lot of Devastator Squads, the jacked up price for heavy weapons has me worried quite a bit. If a Tactical Squad is 65 pts for 5 minis, and MM cost 27 pts, that is 173 pts for the squad of Devastators (since the Tac, Assault, Dev Squads had the same base price). That is a pretty big increase in cost. Hopefully Lascannons and Missile Launchers will be cheaper, since those are the variants I run.

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
I'm happy to see the two list building methods.

Seconded. Given that I don't play competitively, power level will be just fine. But it's nice that GW will have points for those who need them.

"No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.

They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.

I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.

 Desubot wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I feel like the article didn't give much except hint at point balancing for heavy weapons and give us some other points.

Well they are basically teasing. if they gave everything out before the release it wouldn't be nearly as satisfying... right?

I meant anything new, we already had an article stating three ways to play

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.

They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source. The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.

I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.

Well its also a new game and they clearly didnt want that in there.

and ether way that abusive summoning is gone so now we get to find out what else we get to abuse now. hopefully nothing.

Yeah summoning changes are great in my opinion

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.

They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.

I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.

Is it reactive if they wipe the board clean and begin with X instead of Y from last time? Maybe but it sounds like they are taking a leaf from FFG and giving themselves wiggle room

 Desubot wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.

They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source. The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.

I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.

Well its also a new game and they clearly didnt want that in there.

and ether way that abusive summoning is gone so now we get to find out what else we get to abuse now. hopefully nothing.

+1

A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.

Indeed was needed

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
As someone who runs a lot of Devastator Squads, the jacked up price for heavy weapons has me worried quite a bit. If a Tactical Squad is 65 pts for 5 minis, and MM cost 27 pts, that is 173 pts for the squad of Devastators (since the Tac, Assault, Dev Squads had the same base price). That is a pretty big increase in cost. Hopefully Lascannons and Missile Launchers will be cheaper, since those are the variants I run.

Apples to Oranges my friend. Devastator squad now and in 7th are different animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lysenis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.

They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.

I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.

Is it reactive if they wipe the board clean and begin with X instead of Y from last time? Maybe but it sounds like they are taking a leaf from FFG and giving themselves wiggle room

Age of Sigmar's largest tournament is the SouthCoast GT. During the...probably 2016 tournament they used rules just like these but the units summoned were discounted 25%.

Something like 8 out of the top ten lists were summoning based. Even with only 25% bonus on less than half of their army. It's not really reactionary so much as it is a holding action. They want to start at the baseline and then see if it needs tweaks up, not start at the top and need to emergency patch it down. THAT would be reactionary.

The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.

ERJAK wrote:
.

 Lysenis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"No free summoning" seems like a pretty typical GW pendulum swing.

They created a problem with daemon summoning, Herald nesting dolls and free transports/upgrades for units. Rather than fix the problem, they're just removing all free stuff regardless of source, so it resolves the worst examples, but kills off all the smaller ones at the same time (ie. I doubt many Tyranid players were flooding the board with Tervigons in 7th). The hard extreme opposite, just like the always do.

I dunno is reactionary rules writing is the best place to begin with a new game, but at the same time they've been doing this since 3rd Ed so really why should any of us be at all surprised, even if they haven't done it on quite this scale before.

Is it reactive if they wipe the board clean and begin with X instead of Y from last time? Maybe but it sounds like they are taking a leaf from FFG and giving themselves wiggle room

Age of Sigmar's largest tournament is the SouthCoast GT. During the...probably 2016 tournament they used rules just like these but the units summoned were discounted 25%.

Something like 8 out of the top ten lists were summoning based. Even with only 25% bonus on less than half of their army. It's not really reactionary so much as it is a holding action. They want to start at the baseline and then see if it needs tweaks up, not start at the top and need to emergency patch it down. THAT would be reactionary.

It means that versatility was great but the points reduction is big.

Still if each Guant from the Tervigon is only worth a few points then I would not mind setting aside 120 points or so for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.

Likely means I have the stats near to right. 2d6 Damage with rolling 3d6 taking the highest 2.

 Fenris-77 wrote:
The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.

That and now moving with heavy weapons is just -1 to hit instead of needing 6's. For your devs that means they hit on 4's while on the move, that's also a pretty big advantage over the current devs.

ERJAK wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
As someone who runs a lot of Devastator Squads, the jacked up price for heavy weapons has me worried quite a bit. If a Tactical Squad is 65 pts for 5 minis, and MM cost 27 pts, that is 173 pts for the squad of Devastators (since the Tac, Assault, Dev Squads had the same base price). That is a pretty big increase in cost. Hopefully Lascannons and Missile Launchers will be cheaper, since those are the variants I run.

Apples to Oranges my friend. Devastator squad now and in 7th are different animals.

I hope they are different for the better. I only have four Squads in my Crimson Fists and one for my Blood Angels. Other than Sternguard, Devastators are my favorite unit in the game. Hopefully Imperial/Crimson Fists still have the best Devastators in the game.

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
The ability to split fire on a Dev squad is pretty keen, and worth some of that point increase. I the MM is the most expensive weapon I think the cost looks about right.

That and now moving with heavy weapons is just -1 to hit instead of needing 6's. For your devs that means they hit on 4's while on the move, that's also a pretty big advantage over the current devs.

On the whole the price increase seems reasonable to me. At the very least it comes with upgrades, so I'm cool with it. I'm also happy with the idea that the cost of the weapons might result in more models and less upgrades in an average game.

So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.

I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.

Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.

I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.

Have they said how declaring targets will work yet? If it is done one unit at a time that seems like it would be incentive to run mixed weapons in Devastator squads. If it is done model-by-model or the whole army at once then that particular incentive to mix weapons would go away.