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.

Dudeface wrote:
They are balanced, you can either start them on the table and get full value or have them pop up later into multiple units as a distraction and a punishment for killing your objective huggers.

Use your tactics here. The point for splitting are summoning points, if your opponents leave the pink horrors alone, the use the summoning points to summon the unit in normally, or use them to summon more useful units up field. Since you're not locked into taking the horrors as your summon it's a huge advantage and a mind game for your foe.

Indeed, if while in reserve you have the option to summon them or split them, than yes I can see this. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you had to commit to splitting the unit once decided in pre-game deployment, which, outside of a few very niche situations, would be largely disadvantageous.

I do think models starting on the board are worth more than models appearing from split. If you pay the same points to get split then it's akin to a terrible reserves mechanic where your reserves only ever come on IF your opponent decides to destroy a unit of pinks. I would have preferred the option to buy split as a unit upgrade for slightly fewer points than blues/brims would cost if bought independently so it'd be a real choice between buying it or starting with more models usable on the board from the start of the game.

Anything is better than the old split rules though. They were game breaking on 9pt horrors, and doubly so when you could summon ten more on a WC3 spell.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Talamare wrote:My point is... They should have just kept some of the basic USRs...

Because APPARENTLY THEY STILL EXIST...

The effects still exist.

However, because the rules are placed on the relevant datasheets, it means that you don't need to keep flipping back through the BRB to figure out what it means. If you have the datasheet for every unit you're using, then if you need something with that unit, you just check their sheet. At the moment, it's "check the unit, then check the rulebook". If you cut out the "check the rulebook" stage, then it shortens the time by at least half.

You don't flip into the BRB for common USR. I take the stance that rarely used USR should have been removed, but there was no need to remove the big few.

I don't know about you, but I bring a 1-2 page Army List that doesn't include Rules to matches. Just what they have been loaded out with. For the most part, this works fine since I try to avoid any units with rare or obnoxious rules. I know that the majority of my LGS is basically the same.

Do you know what DOES cause us to pull out a rulebook? When a unit has a rule that only appears on a single unit. This is going to cause MORE people to look into their rules OR cause people to instead of printing 1-2 pages into printing 8-10 pages.

This isn't simplification, this is complication.

 chalkobob wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
They are balanced, you can either start them on the table and get full value or have them pop up later into multiple units as a distraction and a punishment for killing your objective huggers.

Use your tactics here. The point for splitting are summoning points, if your opponents leave the pink horrors alone, the use the summoning points to summon the unit in normally, or use them to summon more useful units up field. Since you're not locked into taking the horrors as your summon it's a huge advantage and a mind game for your foe.

Indeed, if while in reserve you have the option to summon them or split them, than yes I can see this. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you had to commit to splitting the unit once decided in pre-game deployment, which, outside of a few very niche situations, would be largely disadvantageous.

From what I read, it is effectively a "summoning pool". Points you did not spend building the army set aside to cover any new unit you create throughout the game.

They Snipe your Psychic Summoner Guy: Spend those points on Splits instead.

They slaughter the Pinks in such a way that Blues or Brimstones would just be a waste of time, Psychic Summoner Guy summons a Bloodthirster instead.

Or a little of both. It is your point pool, do what is needed with it during the game.

The idea that getting blues for a discount is asking for free stuff is not realy true as if pinks are not killed they are lost points.

Think of it as get in a tank who can willfully get out why whoud you ever take them.

But make it a unit upgrade or baked into the points cost for a hair cheeper than an extra unit they will see play .

Me I am already going though my daemon units and getting rid of extras as a mono God player I will not be summoning

It was very frustrating fighting pink spam, and having those blobs be able to shoot D everywhere. While it will be just as frustrating to fight in 8th, at least it will reduce the amount of other demon's being brought to the table due to them now costing points.

I do feel that blues and brims should be discounted, as their effectiveness does drop off. Not free, but definitely discounted.

What me and our local demons player have been debating, is if psykers will know X spells, or be able to roll on psychic tables a la 7th (neither of us have played AoS, so we don't know the precedence). Anyone know how this works?

 Klowny wrote:
It was very frustrating fighting pink spam, and having those blobs be able to shoot D everywhere. While it will be just as frustrating to fight in 8th, at least it will reduce the amount of other demon's being brought to the table due to them now costing points.

I do feel that blues and brims should be discounted, as their effectiveness does drop off. Not free, but definitely discounted.

What me and our local demons player have been debating, is if psykers will know X spells, or be able to roll on psychic tables a la 7th (neither of us have played AoS, so we don't know the precedence). Anyone know how this works?

I think that we can safely infer the answer from the the rubric marines war scroll.

It's going to be just like AoS.

Each psyker will most likely have set powers.

Yep that's what I was hoping for. Demons ATM are very hit or miss, if they roll well on the tables they are incredibly strong, otherwise.... not so much. Having some random elements in a game is ok, but I've had games where my friend has rolled terribly before the game and it sealed his fate before the game even started, which isn't that much fun to play. He's also rolled extremely well, and made it not fun at all for me either. Not much point playing those games. With set powers it makes it more tractable

 Klowny wrote:
Yep that's what I was hoping for. Demons ATM are very hit or miss, if they roll well on the tables they are incredibly strong, otherwise.... not so much. Having some random elements in a game is ok, but I've had games where my friend has rolled terribly before the game and it sealed his fate before the game even started, which isn't that much fun to play. He's also rolled extremely well, and made it not fun at all for me either. Not much point playing those games. With set powers it makes it more tractable

Here's the article that I was referencing. Check out what the data sheet says for the Aspiring Sorcerer. It's just like in AoS.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/11/new-warhammer-40000-datasheetsgw-homepage-post-4/

 Traditio wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
Yep that's what I was hoping for. Demons ATM are very hit or miss, if they roll well on the tables they are incredibly strong, otherwise.... not so much. Having some random elements in a game is ok, but I've had games where my friend has rolled terribly before the game and it sealed his fate before the game even started, which isn't that much fun to play. He's also rolled extremely well, and made it not fun at all for me either. Not much point playing those games. With set powers it makes it more tractable

Here's the article that I was referencing. Check out what the data sheet says for the Aspiring Sorcerer. It's just like in AoS.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/11/new-warhammer-40000-datasheetsgw-homepage-post-4/

Yep thats the article that has caused the discussion between us. As I've said we don't play AoS so don't know how it works in that system. But I read it as that psyker knows smite only as its what is stated in the data sheet.

But my friend interpreted it differently.

As every psyker knows smite, and it says 'an aspiring sorcerer can attempt to manifest one psychic power each phase), he read it as the sorcerer knowing smite + table abilities.

So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?

 Traditio wrote:

Galef wrote:While this is great from a balance standpoint

Of course it is. "Free" anything, especially free models/upgrades, by definition is imbalancing. It's a stupid rule and they should have never implemented it in the first place..

Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.

Likewise, units that can summon should have that factored into their cost.

Having to keep points aside is a silly way of handling summoning.

Klowny wrote:So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?

In AoS, you can cast all of the spells, and only the spells, that it lists on the individual data sheets.

AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!

 Traditio wrote:

Klowny wrote:So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?

In AoS, you can cast all of the spells, and only the spells, that it lists on the individual data sheets.

AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!

Sweet! Thanks for clearing that up Traditio!

insaniak wrote:Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.

Funny.

Because I'm pretty sure that you were singing a different tune when the Gladius Strike Force came out.

Here's the deal:

Let's ignore fairness. Summoning at, the very least, presents the appearance of unfairness.

If you go through 2300 points of models by the end of the game, but it was only an 1850 game, I can't help but feel as though the odds have been stacked against me.

Summoning is stupid. Splitting is stupid.

They should just remove it entirely...

However, in all fairness to the summoning armies that already exist, they are keeping it around. And nerfing it to the point of being...perhaps not unusable...but certainly not good.

Ultimately, I like this state of affairs.

Because feth summoning. Feth splitting. And feth free points in general.

 Traditio wrote:
AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!

You mean horrible, right?
There's a reason that having multiple Wizards in the same army is seen as underpowered for the most part, and part of it stems from that rule.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:You mean horrible, right?

No. I mean "wonderful."

Because feth psykers!

I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.

I LOVE the rule of one and hope that it's part of 8th edition.

And I look forward to laughing my head off with maniacal glee when people realize that their psyker heavy armies have been utterly neutered.

 Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.

If you go through 2300 points of models by the end of the game, but it was only an 1850 game, I can't help but feel as though the odds have been stacked against me.

And feth free points in general.

Agree with these points, war convo wasnt terribly fun to play against, this had a ridiculous amount of free points built in. First time my friend played a similar list that wasnt a convo i was shocked at how little troops he had.

But summoning and splitting are cool things unique to demons. Like most things they sucked when abused, this seems to be a good way to bring it in line and reduces the ability for the rules to be abused.

 Traditio wrote:

Funny.

Because I'm pretty sure that you were singing a different tune when the Gladius Strike Force came out.

I don't recall discussing Horrors when the Gladius rules were released.

If you go through 2300 points of models by the end of the game, but it was only an 1850 game, I can't help but feel as though the odds have been stacked against me.

You missed the point. Blue Horrors aren't free models. They're essentially nothing more than a wound counter. If you replaced a Space Marine Captain with a different model each time he suffered a wound, the second and subsequent models aren't 'free'... They just represent the wounded state of the Captain. It's the same with Horrors, except that the statline and the number of models change.... Which is a known, predictable effect, and so can be points costed accordingly.

The issue with Horrors isn't that you get 'free' models, but is simply whether or not Pink Horrors are costed appropriately to represent their unique method of tallying wounds.

insaniak wrote: It's the same with Horrors, except that the statline and the number of models change.... Which is a known, predictable effect, and so can be points costed accordingly.

Something like this point was mentioned before, but I don't think that it flies.

There is no difference, in terms of the final result, between paying x points cost (your proposal) vs. paying w + x + y points cost, which, when added together, equals x.

If anything, the "pay as you go" system is actually more advantageous to the daemons player.

...assuming, of course, that he wasn't just wanting to "bake it into the points cost" to receive additional wounds/models at a discount (in other words, free points).

 Traditio wrote:

There is no difference, in terms of the final result, between paying x points cost (your proposal) vs. paying w + x + y points cost, which, when added together, equals x. .

Except that one is simple and straightforward, and the other is pointless book-keeping that will result in people just not bothering with the splitting.

 insaniak wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

There is no difference, in terms of the final result, between paying x points cost (your proposal) vs. paying w + x + y points cost, which, when added together, equals x. .

Except that one is simple and straightforward, and the other is pointless book-keeping that will result in people just not bothering with the splitting.

Now that you mention it, the pointless book-keeping does have the potential to be annoying. I mean...who really feels like standing around and waiting while his opponent does math?

On the other hand, it does have the potential to kill, at least for all intents and purposes, the splitting rule. If it's such a hassle and provides such marginal benefit that nobody actually bothers using it, then so much the better.

 Klowny wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Klowny wrote:So in AoS you can only cast whatever is on the data-sheet? They don't have tables to roll on like we have now?

In AoS, you can cast all of the spells, and only the spells, that it lists on the individual data sheets.

AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!

Sweet! Thanks for clearing that up Traditio!

Shame he's wrong.

Some of the more recent codexes like Sylvaneth provide extra spells (on tables) for all the units in the book and from what I've seen summoning spells aren't on the mages warscroll. And the rule of one isn't mandatory it's only if you choose Matched Play.

 Traditio wrote:

On the other hand, it does have the potential to kill, at least for all intents and purposes, the splitting rule. If it's such a hassle and provides such marginal benefit that nobody actually bothers using it, then so much the better.

That's not a good thing.

As much of a pain as it can be to deal with on the table, splitting is a cool, characterful touch for horrors. It was a shame when it went away the first time, and it would be even more sad to see it go away again simply because the rules render it pointless.

insaniak wrote:That's not a good thing.

Agree to disagree.

 Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Blue Horrors that split from Pink Horrors aren't free. Their cost is a part of what you're paying for when you purchase the Pink Horrors.

Funny.

Because I'm pretty sure that you were singing a different tune when the Gladius Strike Force came out.

How are they even comparable? Summoning at the least has an actual opportunity cost post list-building phase- Gladius does not. Trying to shift the argument to focus only on the conclusion (extra units) while ignoring the process that got us there is disingenuous.

You can make the claim that free units are bad, and most people would agree with you. It is absolutely possible to have spontaneous summoning mechanics that are balanced, however.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
AoS also has a wonderful Rule of One, which limits it so that you can only use one of each spell per turn, regardless of how many of your psykers know that spell!

You mean horrible, right?
There's a reason that having multiple Wizards in the same army is seen as underpowered for the most part, and part of it stems from that rule.

And assuming GW didn't flat out lie when they said psychics will be scalable it won't exist on 40k.

 Traditio wrote:


I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.

That's not a problem with psykers, it's a problem with GW not building adequate psyker counters or alternatives into armies that don't have psykers. Adding in more anti-psyker options would make for a much better game than neutering psykers.

 Traditio wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:You mean horrible, right?

No. I mean "wonderful."

Because feth psykers!

I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.

I LOVE the rule of one and hope that it's part of 8th edition.

And I look forward to laughing my head off with maniacal glee when people realize that their psyker heavy armies have been utterly neutered.

So because you hate it, anyone who likes it should suffer? Wow... ok then...
Many of us actually enjoy the psychic phase and the extra aspect it brings (sans invis).
Some of the best lists I've seen involved either no psykers, or at most 1. There are many lists without psykers that would be at an advantage against 98% of other lists that show up to the table, that has nothing to do with psykers (obviously as I just stated the lists didn't have them) but to do with the lack of balance in the game as a whole. The fact you need psykers or you will certainly be at a disadvantage in 7th is a massive fallacy.
Rule of 1 sounds ridiculous. Want to balance powers? Then cost them appropriately. Rule of 1 means the more psykers you take the worse your army is in comparison to an army with just one or two psykers. That is actually a lack of balance - psyker heavy armies should be just as competitive as psyker light armies, or you just destroy the balance you are trying to create.

 insaniak wrote:

 Traditio wrote:


I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.

That's not a problem with psykers, it's a problem with GW not building adequate psyker counters or alternatives into armies that don't have psykers. Adding in more anti-psyker options would make for a much better game than neutering psykers.

sos are a rock-paper-scissors solution. Not a good one.

 Traditio wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:You mean horrible, right?

No. I mean "wonderful."

Because feth psykers!

I hate them. And I most certainly hate the 7th edition meta involving psykers, where you had the option of either taking multiple psykers, or else, being at a significant disadvantage.

I LOVE the rule of one and hope that it's part of 8th edition.

And I look forward to laughing my head off with maniacal glee when people realize that their psyker heavy armies have been utterly neutered.

So in other words, you'll only be too happy if certain platsyles become absolute trash, even though you've complained incessantly in the past of these forums about those exact kind of people?

Screw that noise. Seriously if you're that spiteful you are no better than those people who spammed power-lists in casual games because they like winning more than they like other people.
What happened to you crusading for balance? Even if you weren't always correct with the way you wanted to balance things in the past (or what was actually imbalanced), and we've disagreed at times because of that I always respected how you had the best intentions. Come on Traditio, you're better than this.