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.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/12/new-warhammer-40000-points-power-levels-may12gw-homepage-post-4/

The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet. It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.

OH YEAH!

Welcome to the 21st century gw. Blizzard has only been doing this since brood war.

So Tactical marines are 13 points.
Grav pistol is 7
Multi-melta is 27.

Odd numbers for sure. (I prefer all my unit's points coming to a multiple of 5)

Pistols being cheaper (and being able to fire while locked in combat) will improve them a lot

Wow - designing in the possibility for adjusting points values without re-issuing the whole book.

This lets the game have so much potential for better balance. THANK YOU GW!

Shame about summoning though. I would have preferred just to pay a higher tax on units that could summon. I guess it's a hard mechanic to balance otherwise though.

In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting. You will no longer be able to indefinitely replicate Daemon units, and instead, summoning will be used more as an alternative mechanism of deployment, much like deep striking or outflanking is today (both of which exist in their own forms in the new Warhammer 40,000 too).

I wonder if this means you can reserve points instead of units.

 Shadelkan wrote:

The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet. It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.

OH YEAH!

Someone should pick up the phone cause I called it.

 Shadelkan wrote:

In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting. You will no longer be able to indefinitely replicate Daemon units, and instead, summoning will be used more as an alternative mechanism of deployment, much like deep striking or outflanking is today (both of which exist in their own forms in the new Warhammer 40,000 too).

I wonder if this means you can reserve points instead of units.

That is exactly what it means.

You know. The way they describe the demon thing....
They could get around their lack of shooting...If they can summon them anywhere on the battle field and charge

 Shadelkan wrote:
I wonder if this means you can reserve points instead of units.

Not sure, they speak specifically about Daemons being summoned so I would guess this mechanic applies mainly to them. It mentions that Deep Strike and Outflank will continue to exist in some form so I guess normal armies will continue as they do currently.

As a sidenote, in AoS, the armies that can summon are Daemons, Sylvaneth, Seraphon (who are basically Order-daemons) and Undead (via raising). Seraphon have no obvious equivalent in 40K. Necrons are undead in space and i suppose might get a pool of points to represent reinforcements of choice being teleported in from a remote Tombworld. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Hmm so if MM is 27pts a pop on tacticals...I wonder what the point cost for the other Heavy weapons will be...50pts Lascannons? 40pts fusion blasters? LOL

In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting. You will no longer be able to indefinitely replicate Daemon units, and instead, summoning will be used more as an alternative mechanism of deployment, much like deep striking or outflanking is today (both of which exist in their own forms in the new Warhammer 40,000 too).

Thank the Emperor.

And with that, demon factories and other summon-spam lists are toast, and there was much rejoicing.

I'd bet on fusion blasters and multimeltas costing somewhere around the same, but lascannons will probably be rather expensive. Important to note, though: meltas have less damage variance than lascannons if you can get close, and AP -4 is a bigger deal than AP1 relative to AP2 was. So they might be closer than we expect.

So looks like hard hitting weapons like meltas and lascannons will be priced high due to the damage they can do?

Seems fair.

Tautastic wrote:
Hmm so if MM is 27pts a pop on tacticals...I wonder what the point cost for the other Heavy weapons will be...50pts Lascannons? 40pts fusion blasters? LOL

The Multimelta is the most expensive choice. I.e, Lascannon will be less than 27 points for Tactical Marines.

I hope all the people complaining about the Battlecannon 'not being worth it's points' have taken a step back today and realised how hysterical they were being. The game is basically being repointed almost from scratch.

The MM probably fires 24" with AP -4 and hits on a 4+ ON THE MOVE for marines. Oh, and does D6 damage to anything it hits, MCs or vehicles. So that's why it is now the most expensive. Curiously, I don't have any MM marines.

so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.

Well, I thought I'd never see the day. what a time to be alive ^^

Genestealer cults will be hit by the new rules for summoning but it will allow them to customize for the enemy which will be nice and it won't be lets spam for summons and use what's left for our other powers it will be more lets use our other powers and have a unit or two ready for summoning. Nice I like it.

Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Timeshadow wrote:
Genestealer cults will be hit by the new rules for summoning but it will allow them to customize for the enemy which will be nice and it won't be lets spam for summons and use what's left for our other powers it will be more lets use our other powers and have a unit or two ready for summoning. Nice I like it.

In many ways we already could! This actually just opens things up more for having new armies summon stuff. Like maybe, just maybe, Tyranids? (pretty please!)

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Marine + Multimelta is a nice round 40.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

For heavy weapons upgrades, I think 5pt increments are granular enough, 27pts vs 25 or 30 pts probably isnt going to make any meaningful balance difference or options choice changes, but can make army construction run into a lot more weird issues of being 2pts over or having 4 pts left that you cant do anything with, stuff like that.

Not something I feel ultra strong about, just a preference thing.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Marine + Multimelta is a nice round 40.

On an individual basis, sure, but when marines are typically bought in multiples of 5, that gets thrown off.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Sergeant with Grav Pistol - 13+7=20
Trooper with a Multi-Metal - 13+27=40

It's rounded by model, rather than item it appears.

EDIT: Scooped

On the flip side when you buy marine #6 for that gun now you are even on points where before you were not. There is no granular method that makes it so that you can always exactly hit the point level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

No, no. That decreases granularity. Being enslaved to the multiple of 5 paradigm is not good.

For heavy weapons upgrades, I think 5pt increments are granular enough, 27pts vs 25 or 30 pts probably isnt going to make any meaningful balance difference or options choice changes, but can make army construction run into a lot more weird issues of being 2pts over or having 4 pts left that you cant do anything with, stuff like that.

Not something I feel ultra strong about, just a preference thing.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Most of this sounds like good stuff, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Increased heavy weapons costs, at least as portrayed by the MM, sounds like it may ameliorate some of the concerns about multidamage weapons and vehicle resiliency.

That said...27pts for an MM? Interesting that we're going back to weird numbers like that, I'd prefer if they had just rounded that off to 25 or 30.

Marine + Multimelta is a nice round 40.

On an individual basis, sure, but when marines are typically bought in multiples of 5, that gets thrown off.

Also rounding does make a significant difference if you think of taking things in multiples. So for a devastator squad if Multi-meltas are 30 points instead of 27. Now we are talking about a difference of 12 points when you look at taking 4 of said weapon. Further if the next cost down is 25 points that means that when taking 4 multi-meltas you end up spending 20 points more than the next option down instead of spending only 8 points more. Also consider things like Flakk missles, that no one took because they were too expensive at 25 points. maybe if odd points had been a thing they could have been made useful.

I kinda liked the challenge of hunting down that odd 2 pts even if I had to switch a unit for something else. I was always happy when I could get the exact 1500pts or whatever.

 Asmodai wrote:

Sergeant with Grav Pistol - 13+7=20
Trooper with a Multi-Metal - 13+27=40

It's rounded by model, rather than item it appears.

EDIT: Scooped

I doubt that a Marine Sergeant will be 13.
I expect they'll have removed the (rather silly) difference between a Sergeant and a Veteran Sergeant (That literally only marines have)
Though they also probably aren't going to be 10pts over a standard trooper like squad leader upgrades have been since forever

Well, technically, Sisters had that difference as well. You have to pay to go from Sister Superior to Veteran Sister Superior, but it is still dumb.