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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
Power level is meant for generalisation and narrative play, if you want balance you're going to need the matched play system.

Yeah, I did mention that this was in America I was talking about. We always make things competitive. A group of guys can't eat hot dogs without some competition being made out of it somewhere. Warhammer was never once intended to be a competitive game, but here in 'Murica, it's seeruz biznezz.

well, I'd argue that it's played as a tactical wargame rather than as a narrative sandbox. And, to be fair, it's because that's how GW organized it for nearly two decades. If you attended a GW run event in 1999 or 2005 or 2009, what they had on offer was...competitive tournament play, and little else besides painting and whatnot. Or, if they had something else, it was a small one off for the event that was stuff like "buy and build one of the new chaos spawn kits, have them all fight at the end of the day and the winner gets a $90 credit".

Well, yeah, WE play that way, but it was originally designed as a beer & pretzel game. And of course, we 'Muricans like to go all soccer hooligan with any game over beer & pretzels. Football, baseball, basketball, heck, we even do it with hockey. Need I say more?

Like the others said, prefer the numbers being multiple of 5 (and why I found it a nightmapere trying to give my CC a boltgun)
Not a massive deal, but'll be annoying when my OCD makes me redo the list a thousand and one times to make it 1850 on the dot.

Well, it's common over here to have tournaments that involve a reward.

My FLGS does a tournament a month. With $15.00 entry fee. First place gets half the money, second place gets 35% of the money and third place gets 15% of the money in store credit.

So, imagine entering with 10 players. 150.00 = 75.00 - 52.50 - 22.50. So, taking first really can add something like a Stormraven to your army.

So, people get pretty competitive at those returns.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Just like when flamers were 6pts instead of 5pts. That extra point didnt really mean anything in terms of balance but made army construction a little more awkward.

People already pointed out, it adds up after a while. You could be short of a needed, say, plasma gun after a while.

Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

Youn wrote:
Well, it's common over here to have tournaments that involve a reward.

My FLGS does a tournament a month. With $15.00 entry fee. First place gets half the money, second place gets 35% of the money and third place gets 15% of the money in store credit.

So, imagine entering with 10 players. 150.00 = 75.00 - 52.50 - 22.50. So, taking first really can add something like a Stormraven to your army.

So, people get pretty competitive at those returns.

Which is why I would prefer to have a different prize system, like a box of models to an unrelated game or a board game. Just rewarding the winners makes their armies stronger and better, furthering increasing their chances of victory.

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Tau have had for a while units with odd points costs, including upgrades for only like 3 or 4 points each, and Crisis Suits costing like 21 points each or something (I don't recall exactly). Plus, it makes things much more precise in trying to balance things out better.

steerpike92 wrote:
Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

Split fire across all models in units would cut down on MSU spam, especially since you don't have to "waste" a unit's shooting at a target they shouldn't. I mean, the only Heavy Weapons I considered taking on my Tactical Squads was Heavy Bolters and Missile Launchers, and if I had 10 guys for the Special Weapon I would make use of Combat Squads.

MarboLives wrote:
Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

If it is creating "new" units in the battle, chances are that it will costs points out of the Summoning points in the army, unless it has a special rule specifying otherwise.

MarboLives wrote:
Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

I'd imagine one of the following situations for Tervigons

Can spawn/summon any reserved points as termagants

Can replenish models in termagant units that have lost models

Can no longer spawn termagants in battle, but buffs nearby units of them considerably

Jbz` wrote:


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

We have that distinction to. 10 points for +1 leadership, but the regular Sister Superior can get all the special weapons too.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

And battleshock will increase it again. I don't expect much to change.

It is my sincere hope that the "Power Level" becomes the default for casual games as a rough estimate of a game (thereby eliminating the problem that AOS had before Matched Play) while Matched Play stays for competitive tournaments and the like. I really hope we don't see matched play points become the only real way because "it's not fair" that people aren't paying for individual weapon upgrades.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Jbz` wrote:


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

We have that distinction to. 10 points for +1 leadership, but the regular Sister Superior can get all the special weapons too.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

And battleshock will increase it again. I don't expect much to change.

Having played Age of Sigmar for close to a year now, I can tell you the Battleshock doesn't encourage MSU as much people think it does.

Is battleshock in AoS dependent on the number of models removed or wounds?

Models.

Jbz` wrote:

MarboLives wrote:
Any thoughts on how the summoning / reserved points situation will affect a unit like the tervigon?

I'd imagine one of the following situations for Tervigons

Can spawn/summon any reserved points as termagants

Can replenish models in termagant units that have lost models

Can no longer spawn termagants in battle, but buffs nearby units of them considerably

You hit all of my ideas as well. It will be interesting to see what direction they take a lot of the tyranid beasts, as there's a lot of role overlap ATM and they were super hamstrung by keeping everything at T6. Now with the new to-wound chart we might see the carnifex become the T9 W10 2+ save battering ram it used to be, and the tervigon get REALLY fast, and tervigons being a force multiplier to gaunts and gants. Excited to see!

the_scotsman wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Chaining wasn't actually legal (can't cast on the turn you're summoned) and Wrath of Magnus removed Horrors getting Daemonology. Plus, coin flip odds for a summon require 5 WC... Mathematically, summon-hammer wasn't exactly a good build so nerfing it is more a way to appease the scrubs rather than attains real balance. Plus now, there's really no reason to run Word Bearers over pretty much any other Legion. (Guess which Legion I run).

...it's like when Gav released the 4e codex all over again. Shame.

Lists that used summoning have been incredibly powerful pretty much since 7th edition dropped until now. WoM removed horrors summoning but it added freakin' magnus, who carried whole GTs on his own due in no small part to the fact that depending on the matchup he could poop nigh-unkillable units of pink horrors onto the board.

Generally prior to WoM, the issue was less summoning (whoop-de-do, you bring bunched-up units that do nothing for a turn) so much the ability to stack buffs in a way to make incredibly resilient objective-campers. Nanivati's Adepticon lists cared less about summons so much as "two giant screamerstars, Fateweaver, and a Plaguedrone star with Biomancy Fecundity Heralds." Layered defenses, plus the ability to destroy/attrition Knights and other targets down.

The Chaos list that did best this previous LVO wasn't a summon list, but an Ordnance Tyrant list with Screamer screen. The other lists used Daemons as a battery for Magnus, with actual Thousand Sons appropriately collecting dust on the shelves.

Nothing here actually implies summon-spam was actually the component that needed fixing. It's more a scrub-hammer knee-jerk reaction to something that "should not be", despite it also nerfing those armies that could use it to fill in other serious army gaps.

Fix the actual 1k Sons army for proper internal balance (Example: make Siphon Magic a Grand Cabal command benefit rather than a random Psyker power, and prevent it from being recursive), rather than destroying other armies with a sweeping core rule change first.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Jbz` wrote:


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

We have that distinction to. 10 points for +1 leadership, but the regular Sister Superior can get all the special weapons too.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

And battleshock will increase it again. I don't expect much to change.

Refresh my memory what is msu again?

Multiple small units.

 Drasius wrote:
Multiple small units.

Ah, thank you. So many good those floating around I get them confused.

Wayniac wrote:
It is my sincere hope that the "Power Level" becomes the default for casual games as a rough estimate of a game (thereby eliminating the problem that AOS had before Matched Play) while Matched Play stays for competitive tournaments and the like. I really hope we don't see matched play points become the only real way because "it's not fair" that people aren't paying for individual weapon upgrades.

People like points for different reasons; myself, I only played causal 40k (I went to tournaments but with WHFB 5th and 6th edition).

I like points when well executed because I like to write lists, evaluate options, have choice, and then comment it with my friends post-game.

This has nothing to do with being over-competitive.

It'll be points or nothing because the other system does not account for upgrades and TFG will try to game the system.

Same reason unbound was doomed to fail before the edition even came out.

 Galef wrote:
Having played Daemons since 5th ed, it will be easy to adjust to not getting free units. I'm only sad that it is just a deployment gimmick now. It has been my experience that having more models on the board is usually better.
It could be nice to pick different units depending on the need though, so that will be fun.

Hopefully Daemon horde-style is still viable. And that they make Pink/Blue/Brimstone horrors worth taking. I bought 2 boxes had have yet to use the Split rule at all.
If you have to pay for the models that split, that rule would be pointless as it would be better just to deploy them all from the beginning.

-

If this works like AoS, reinforcing existing units will be free. So you can have a unit of Blue Horros near a unit of Pink Horrors, and whenever a Pink Horror dies, you can add two to the unit of Blue Horrors for free, if they are less than at the beginning of the game. (This last part I don't remember correctly now, so maybe you can go with more than at the beginning, if its still the same unit)

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Youn wrote:
Well, it's common over here to have tournaments that involve a reward.

My FLGS does a tournament a month. With $15.00 entry fee. First place gets half the money, second place gets 35% of the money and third place gets 15% of the money in store credit.

So, imagine entering with 10 players. 150.00 = 75.00 - 52.50 - 22.50. So, taking first really can add something like a Stormraven to your army.

So, people get pretty competitive at those returns.

Which is why I would prefer to have a different prize system, like a box of models to an unrelated game or a board game. Just rewarding the winners makes their armies stronger and better, furthering increasing their chances of victory.

In this type of game, getting more models for the game you play doesn't distinctly give you an advantage for the next game.

Reason:
1 - The people you play know what new models you got (If they give out actual models instead of money)
2 - They know what you used last time to when and can adjust their armies accordingly
3 - Dice rolls don't come out the same every game, sometime a win in a close game really is a swing of the dice rolls.
4 - Nothing prevents other people from also increasing their armies, this isn't a closed loop like some video games, where the only way to get better is in game rewards, and then because you got better, it makes you chances to win the rewards next time better.

Wayniac wrote:
It is my sincere hope that the "Power Level" becomes the default for casual games as a rough estimate of a game (thereby eliminating the problem that AOS had before Matched Play) while Matched Play stays for competitive tournaments and the like. I really hope we don't see matched play points become the only real way because "it's not fair" that people aren't paying for individual weapon upgrades.

I hope not, because my time is limited and I just want a fair chance of winning. It's not critical to win; it's critical to have a CHANCE to win, and points gives me a warm, grodnardy glow.

Calculating exactly how many points you have isn't very difficult with a program like https://webapplications-webroster.rhcloud.com/rc/web/#!/rosterCreator.

It's a tiny price to pay in order to have a fair game. Especially when weapon upgrades are often a huge chunk of your troop points.

steerpike92 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Disappointed that they are not using 30ks pricing. I was hoping it would make it into this edition. With additional models coming at a slight discount and unit wide upgrades having a flat cost instead of ppm. It helps reduce the effectiveness of MSU by creating cost effectiveness with larger units.

Split fire is going to massively decrease MSU shenanigans.

But biggest advantages are survivabilty and abilty to be in 2 places


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
It'll be points or nothing because the other system does not account for upgrades and TFG will try to game the system.

Same reason unbound was doomed to fail before the edition even came out.

Just casual quick read of this forum proves your statement wrong.

Funnily enough even unbound was used so wrong there again

Msu has many MANY advantages. The only way i have seen to effectively combat those advantages in 40k is cost effeciency.

30k does a great job by making each additional model less expensive than the base unit would be and unit wide upgrades coming in at a flat cost so you get more bang for your buck with each additional model.

You either get more flexible mobility out of your msu with creating screens to protect units from melee and reduce the risk of battleshock or take your advantages from your point expenditure by building up the units you have.

Its a significantly more interesting decision with much more nuance and no clear answers.

But if i can take 1 unit of rubric marines and add 5 guys or get 2 units of rubric marines and gain a second psyker for almost exactly the same cost why the hell would i ever take it as a single unit? (So long as foc slots are available. Have you seen the foc charts? I don't think not having enough slots will be an issue)

MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

 Charistoph wrote:
MSU does seem to raise the Power Level of the army, from what the Thousand Sons sheet presented.

That's because it had psyker in it. Rubrics themselves are flat cost. But not every unit has powerful expensive mandatory leader. And of course msu rubrics will be tossing mortal wounds reliably

 Lance845 wrote:
30k does a great job by making each additional model less expensive than the base unit would be

AKA, Back to Squad Tax?