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.

 ross-128 wrote:
If anything is done to address Conscripts, the most reasonable solution would be to make the former large blast weapons scale against blobs. Partially because a lot of the mathhammer snags that apply to Conscripts also apply to other horde armies.

Plus, homogenizing small and large blasts was a bad idea in the first place. While small blasts slightly gained (since they rarely got three hits before and certainly never even had the potential to get six), large blasts did suffer pretty badly from that change. Changing large blasts to gain +1 shots for every 5 models in the unit (the Manticore could get +d3 to represent its previously random blast count, and the RFBC would get +2 because it's two blasts) would help restore their anti-horde role.

I'd be in favour of something along these lines.

But then, I don't see why so many weapons need random shots in the first place. Why not just give small blasts 2 shots (modifiers for target size notwithstanding) and save us all a lot of pointless rolling?

Infantry prices are fine, how about instead we buff anti infantry guns?

The biggest problem is that my grey knight purifiers with 4 flamers will get about 14 hits against a squad of gaunts when in last edition it'd get 28. Stuff that was designed to hurt hoard spam doesn't exist anymore, and the best way to get the mass low quality shooting needed is to spam more hoards of Shooty guys because bolter brothers more often than not will do more wounds with bolters than specialized anti infantry guns.

ross-128 wrote:The cost of orders and blamming is paid by the Officers and Commissars, because those are the models you buy to get them.

Put the cost wherever you want, but the fact remains that whether you put the cost on commissars, officers or the conscripts themselves, the points you actually pay are not proportionate to what you get. So there need to be nerfs somewhere.

And the fact also remains that cultists are undeniably inferior to guardsmen.

But they're not THAT much better than conscripts. Again, you're not taking into account that conscripts have a 5+ armor save compared to the 6+ armor save of a cultist.

At the very least, cultists should not be MORE expensive than a guardsmen (which is what we currently have).

4 ppm conscripts and 5 ppm cultists and guardsmen, accompanied by heavy nerfs to commissars and officers, seem right to me.

The conscripts arent the issue, they are fine. its the commisinars that are the issue, changing a -12 model to a -1 model is huge.

if it halved the amount lost it would be far better.

Honestly it'd be better to just make the Commissar's ability not scale as well for larger units.

Only suffering 1 model from failed Battleshock tests is fine for a 10 man or smaller unit, but for 50? That's when it gets out of hand.

If anything it should be kill 1 to get a re-roll (like previously) or (the way I prefer) have them reduced the amount the Battleshock test is failed by X, to a minimum of 1 (which, given the right X value, would change little for the 10 man and smaller squad but could still impact a Conscript Squad that lost 1/4 of their guys in one turn).

EDIT: like if it was -5 on the number of models lost to failed tests to a minimum of 1 - assuming no Ld modifiers - a 10 man unit with Sergeant would have to lose 8 models in one turn and roll a 6 to lose the last 2 guys to Battleshock.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

I think you're dead wrong. In 7th a conscript blob would hit on a 4+ against 80% of all targets in melee, including total fearless, reroll to hit and reroll saves with a priest. Now they're stuck with a 5+ to hit, no matter what, with no rerolls, no bonus attacks for charging, no rerolls for saves nor hit.

...

This is a knee jerk reaction from butt hurt people who haven't even played the game, conscripts going above 3 PPM is simply unacceptable as they are simply not worth any more than that. They require constant support from several characters, because on their own they cant do anything that can be considered a real threat.

They've lost those bonuses, but are now at least capable of hurting anything and get a save vs. most basic weapons.

That's small beer, though. The main fact is that conscripts aren't meant to be an offensive threat; they're a very cheap defensive block. In 7th they weren't seen because combined Infantry squads gave you the same defensive benefit with more offensive power, you had to take a platoon to get the conscripts anyway, and because high-output weapons wrecked them. Those disadvantages are mitigated or gone, and several mechanics have come around to make hordes more dangerous.

I don't have a dog in this race because I don't plan to use points anyway. But if Conscripts go up a point, it'll be reflecting their now-unique role as a thick defensive blocking unit compared to the Infantry Squad's flexibility.

Honestly, what do you mean by a big defensive blocking unit? How are 50 conscripts blocking differently than 5x10 infantry squads? Having worse stats, crap LD cause no sergeant, no acces to any special weapons or heavy weapons somehow makes them same points value as infantry? I'm not seeing that argument. Furthermore, being a blob is also worse in terms of survivability. If you get tons of firepower thrown at you, you're going to suffer each and every wound, while a 5x10 man infantry squad only looses 10 dudes max, cause the rest don't spill over. Lastly if I were to buy the argument that they were somehow defensive, then they should at least have some form of defensive ability then. As it stands, they're simply worse guardsmen and if they're gonna cost the same as a guardsman, I will simply be buying an additional 5x10 naked infantry instead and congaline them so they all benefit from the aura of the commissar.

 Zewrath wrote:
How are 50 conscripts blocking differently than 5x10 infantry squads?

Orders. One FRF!SRF! order vs. five. One Get Back in the Fight! order instead of five.

Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch.

Charges. One charge roll vs. five individual charges, some of which can fail.

Buffs. Fifty conscripts will all get the benefit of a 6" bubble from, say, a priest in the back. 5 individual infantry squads would need to maneuver to make that possible.

Slots. 1 Troops slot vs. five. Not as much of a problem as it used to be, I'll give you. But in missions where wiping out Troops units gives your enemy victory points, this can be crucial.

Having worse stats, crap LD cause no sergeant, no acces to any special weapons or heavy weapons somehow makes them same points value as infantry? I'm not seeing that argument.

Having 20-50 models in the squad is the benefit. And note I'm not specifically arguing that they should be more expensive- just that it'd make sense if they were.

Furthermore, being a blob is also worse in terms of survivability. If you get tons of firepower thrown at you, you're going to suffer each and every wound, while a 5x10 man infantry squad only looses 10 dudes max, cause the rest don't spill over.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to an Infantry squad. They all die. Three shots were wasted. That's not bad, but you've lost whatever position the Guardsmen were holding.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to a Conscript squad. The Commissar adds one for the morale failure, but the squad is still there. Your opponent needs to devote more firepower to take them out. If you're on an objective, that can mean the difference.

Artificial example, yes. Point is that it's not as clear cut as you make it.

 Traditio wrote:
Again, you're not taking into account that conscripts have a 5+ armor save compared to the 6+ armor save of a cultist.

 ross-128 wrote:
They're definitely not the same as cultists. Cultists have better WS, better BS, and can take flamethrowers in huge blobs. Those three things very much outweigh the downside of having 6+ armor.

???

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch.

Well that isn't such a bad thing sometimes. Remember that a squad that charges can only attack units that it declared a charge on. At least you could get some attacks without taking any back.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Orders. One FRF!SRF! order vs. five. One Get Back in the Fight! order instead of five. True, but with worse WS and BS they need orders to be effective, where regular infantry can survive not getting an order from time to time.

Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch. Mitigated by positioning fairly easily, when needed.

Charges. One charge roll vs. five individual charges, some of which can fail. This is actually a downside for conscripts. If I'm trying to tie down something scary, I'd rather have 5 chances to get a tarpit in place than 1. It also means the other squads can shoot things if needed instead of them all being used as a speedbump. Then you just charge in additional squads as necessary, making the infantry far more effective.

Buffs. Fifty conscripts will all get the benefit of a 6" bubble from, say, a priest in the back. 5 individual infantry squads would need to maneuver to make that possible. This is 100% true, and combined with their cheap price, what makes conscripts worth it currently.

Slots. 1 Troops slot vs. five. Not as much of a problem as it used to be, I'll give you. But in missions where wiping out Troops units gives your enemy victory points, this can be crucial. True but typically we aren't starving for troop slots. KP missions are a definite advantage to conscripts.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to an Infantry squad. They all die. Three shots were wasted. That's not bad, but you've lost whatever position the Guardsmen were holding. 100% false, you have 4 other infantry squads there.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to a Conscript squad. The Commissar adds one for the morale failure, but the squad is still there. Your opponent needs to devote more firepower to take them out. If you're on an objective, that can mean the difference.

Green is me.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Orders. One FRF!SRF! order vs. five. One Get Back in the Fight! order instead of five.

K.

Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch.

Sounds like terrible positioning, but sure that can happen to some degree.

Charges. One charge roll vs. five individual charges, some of which can fail.

Remind me again of why I would ever charge with Guard units in general?

Buffs. Fifty conscripts will all get the benefit of a 6" bubble from, say, a priest in the back. 5 individual infantry squads would need to maneuver to make that possible.

But still quite doable, so it's not actually relevant as it's not actually a real advantage.

Slots. 1 Troops slot vs. five. Not as much of a problem as it used to be, I'll give you. But in missions where wiping out Troops units gives your enemy victory points, this can be crucial.

I'll grant you the VP argument here but since Guard is all about filling slots now, to get easy CP, I'd say that's a plus.

Having 20-50 models in the squad is the benefit. And note I'm not specifically arguing that they should be more expensive- just that it'd make sense if they were.

... no offense here, but why? You're just saying the 20-50 models is the benefit, without really explaining why and then proceed to say that it would make sense to increase the point costs for reasons you haven't actually explained?

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to an Infantry squad. They all die. Three shots were wasted. That's not bad, but you've lost whatever position the Guardsmen were holding.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to a Conscript squad. The Commissar adds one for the morale failure, but the squad is still there. Your opponent needs to devote more firepower to take them out. If you're on an objective, that can mean the difference.

Artificial example, yes. Point is that it's not as clear cut as you make it.

No. You're making crucial error here. My argument is that there's 5x10 guardsmen present vs 50 conscripts. You cannot then proceed to construct an argument, using an example were there's only 10 men on an objective (ignoring the rest of the 4x10 guardsmen sitting on the objective). You're proving my point here. The pseudo blob of 5x10 guardsmen only suffered 10 casualties were as the conscripts suffered more...

 Trickstick wrote:

Well that isn't such a bad thing sometimes. Remember that a squad that charges can only attack units that it declared a charge on. At least you could get some attacks without taking any back.

Mm, that's true, but only for the first round. After that you're looking at a lot of awkward decisions depending on the situation and how many squads got pulled in. Altogether I think I'd rather have the full Overwatch.

If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Perhaps because the books still stand and function? Because they're straight up not giving you any of the other rules for free?

I mean, FAQs aren't 'DLC' equivalent. They're patches.

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

You're comparing apples to steak, here.

Unlike tabletop games, video games have a computer crunching the numbers for you. When the day one patch arrives, the computer does all the work replacing the old with the new.

With a tabletop game? I do all the work with it. I have to reference multiple books, and multiple printouts. Adding to the pile of things I have to reference slows the damn game down massively. Unless the source is released as a printable PDF that is constantly kept up to date-- as opposed to a static, unchanging book-- things for the pen and paper game should be finished before release, not an ongoing balance project. Even even then... it's iffy.

In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

 Zewrath wrote:
Sounds like terrible positioning, but sure that can happen to some degree.

Hey, you don't get to have it both ways. Either you've got five Infantry squads all conga-lining from the same buff character, sitting on the same objective, or you're separated far enough not to have multiple units pulled in by a charge. I think you're very much underestimating the reach assaulting units have in this edition.

Remind me again of why I would ever charge with Guard units in general?

Because this isn't seventh edition any more, and charging after Rapid Fire, striking first in assault, and then withdrawing/using GBitF can be a viable strategy.

... no offense here, but why? You're just saying the 20-50 models is the benefit, without really explaining why and then proceed to say that it would make sense to increase the point costs for reasons you haven't actually explained?

That you don't accept my explanations is not the same as saying I haven't explained it.

No. You're making crucial error here. My argument is that there's 5x10 guardsmen present vs 50 conscripts. You cannot then proceed to construct an argument, using an example were there's only 10 men on an objective (ignoring the rest of the 4x10 guardsmen sitting on the objective). You're proving my point here. The pseudo blob of 5x10 guardsmen only suffered 10 casualties were as the conscripts suffered more...

And you're forgetting wound allocation. If I have 10 men on the objective, and those ten men die, it doesn't matter if there's forty more standing around them- you don't control the objective any more. A Conscript squad can soak casualties from an unimportant part of the unit.

I feel like we're already deep in some arbitrary, goalpost-shifting territory here, which was not my intention because as I stated before a points change doesn't affect me in any way. So I'll let this drop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zewrath wrote:
In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

I would also find this acceptable.

 Zewrath wrote:
In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

Does any other unit in the game have a number restriction (besides dedicated transports)? I thought that GW was trying to leave restrictions behind somewhat. It would be odd for them to introducethis concept for just a single unit and would really screw with their new, simplified design philosophy.

Just don't play games you don't want to. Don't like playing against 150 conscripts at 1k? Then don't. Tournaments are another matter, but that is really down to finding a tournament that you like. If that includes certain restrictions, then someone should try offering that format. For example, the popularity of highlander tournaments.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Sounds like terrible positioning, but sure that can happen to some degree.

Hey, you don't get to have it both ways. Either you've got five Infantry squads all conga-lining from the same buff character, sitting on the same objective, or you're separated far enough not to have multiple units pulled in by a charge.

One of the big benefits of infantry squads is that you DO get to have it both ways because they are multiple units. When you need to secure an objective no matter the cost, you can clump them up on an objective just as tightly as conscripts, but when you need to receive a charge, you can space them out to mitigate that. It can be a bit tricky to do the conga-lining for orders sometimes, and you can definitely be caught out of position, but it's not like you are stuck doing either one or the other only.

Taking multiple officers, commissars, priests, and other buffing characters should help spread out the orders and the buffs to multiple infantry squads, should you go that route. Don't have to pay for a bodyguard for them anymore, either.

I think that anti horde weapons should have rules like the bombard that adds d3 hits for every 5 models in the unit.

That way, they don't become OP agains't elite or single model units, but they become effective again'st hordes.

For example, Flamers could be: d3 hits +d3 hits every for every 10 models a unit has.

So again'st a unit of 5 elite Grey Knights they do d3 hits. But against a bloob of 30 orks boyz they do 4d3 hits.

(The numbers are made up at the fly, but I think the idea is good)

So im going to say this and probably be called a moron for doing so.

I dont think we should judge the price the units on what they can do with the right support. I think we should look at the individual unit look at what it can do in comparison to similar units and point it accordingly.

Conscripts and Cultists are around the same thing from where I sit. With the Conscript being more ranged based and the Cultist more CC based. They both should cost 4 points while guardsman shouls probably be 5.

 Melissia wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

You're comparing apples to steak, here.

Unlike tabletop games, video games have a computer crunching the numbers for you. When the day one patch arrives, the computer does all the work replacing the old with the new.

With a tabletop game? I do all the work with it. I have to reference multiple books, and multiple printouts. Adding to the pile of things I have to reference slows the damn game down massively. Unless the source is released as a printable PDF that is constantly kept up to date-- as opposed to a static, unchanging book-- things for the pen and paper game should be finished before release, not an ongoing balance project. Even even then... it's iffy.

So, you're salty that they're potentially releasing a Day 1 FAQ/Errata to patch some things they've come across in the 6 or so months since the books were being printed? You're really upset that you may have to reference a book and a PDF after an edition where some folk were literally having to lug around 5-6 different books, 2-3 ebooks and pdfs/printouts to field a single army?

Your complaint is that you have to reference ONE ADDITIONAL THING after an edition where people carted along libraries worth of books.

A book and a print out isn't the end of the world.

Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

 Lansirill wrote:
. Then again, it's possible that GW is just messing with us... I know *I* would have fun intentionally leaking rules that are mostly accurate but have a few mistakes.

...why is there no popcorn Orkmoticon?

You would have fun wasting money printing books for stores just for that?

You would not stay in job long! You have any idea how pissed off your superiors would be for such a waste of company's money? What do you think board thinks when they would find out you had squandered part of their dividents away like that...

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

Your argument has some validity, but it also overlooks one huge new change -- the ability to withdraw from combat (and, in the specific case of AM/Conscripts, the widespread ability to retain your shooting after doing so).

The other check on huge morale-proof blobs was the ability to lock them in combat and force them to condense predictably around it.

 MinscS2 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
It is far more expensive for tyranids to do the equivalent

Implying that most nidlists wouldn't have any synapse in them to begin with?
Yeah who want's Tervigons when fielding Termagants? Spawning new units that can charge and/or healing 10 Termagants a turn seems overrated.

Again, apples and oranges.

Implying that most IG lists wouldn't have commisars to begin with. Which is false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
That might be intentional. The downside Typhus has is that he's Unique whereas the LoC isn't. Psykers are also a lot riskier and more prone to blowing up in the new edition as well.

Holy smoke! Somebody still buys the "unique so deserves price decrease" theory? That just leads to unit being auto include and being better the smaller the game is.

Also psyker arqument is flawed. You don't HAVE to risk blowing yourself up so you only use it _when it's good for you_. When odds say you benefit from it then it doesn't matter you might blow you up. Long term you still win more due to it than lose. Ergo it's advantage and should be paid for. It's not like you risk blowing yourself whether you want or not. If it's not worth the risk you don't use it.

It's like 2 weapons. Both have exact same stats except one can be upgraded at chance of blowing yourself up(plasma). Despite risk the weapon with 2 modes is worth more because you don't HAVE to risk it but if you need it you can. Again player will never risk it unless it's worth it and if it's worth it it's better to have the option than not and thus need to pay more for it as in long run you gain more than lose from having the option(or it's option that's never used because it's never worth it but that's super hyper rare case really. Even plasma on mephiston is worth risking though very rare. But still you CAN benefit from it so you need to pay something for it over identical gun without overcharge mode)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

AOS does the opposite. They have datasheets on net and points in yearly book they release. So far no updated points has been seen in AOS as of yet. Well except some previews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

That's one reason I have been hating the decades old trend of cheaper point costs every time. It drives away wiggle room at the lower end!

I would have preferred GW to go with another route with 8th ed. DOUBLE the price of everything including standard game size. After that adjust as needed. Maybe even triple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
With a tabletop game? I do all the work with it. I have to reference multiple books, and multiple printouts. Adding to the pile of things I have to reference slows the damn game down massively. Unless the source is released as a printable PDF that is constantly kept up to date-- as opposed to a static, unchanging book-- things for the pen and paper game should be finished before release, not an ongoing balance project. Even even then... it's iffy.

Of course that means you are doomed for unbalanced game with fixes only when GW releases new book.

People complained GW charging money for fixes. Now they don't and they get complained about that. Lol.

tneva82 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

AOS does the opposite. They have datasheets on net and points in yearly book they release. So far no updated points has been seen in AOS as of yet. Well except some previews.

Wrong. With the Blades of Khorne armybook they changed the point costs of Bloodreavers (They costed 6 points a piece, up to 7 a piece because they gained a 6+ save) and the Korgorath go from 80 points to 100 (because is weapon changed from 1 damage to 2 damage)

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
That might be intentional. The downside Typhus has is that he's Unique whereas the LoC isn't. Psykers are also a lot riskier and more prone to blowing up in the new edition as well.

Holy smoke! Somebody still buys the "unique so deserves price decrease" theory? That just leads to unit being auto include and being better the smaller the game is.

Also psyker arqument is flawed. You don't HAVE to risk blowing yourself up so you only use it _when it's good for you_. When odds say you benefit from it then it doesn't matter you might blow you up. Long term you still win more due to it than lose. Ergo it's advantage and should be paid for. It's not like you risk blowing yourself whether you want or not. If it's not worth the risk you don't use it.

It's like 2 weapons. Both have exact same stats except one can be upgraded at chance of blowing yourself up(plasma). Despite risk the weapon with 2 modes is worth more because you don't HAVE to risk it but if you need it you can. Again player will never risk it unless it's worth it and if it's worth it it's better to have the option than not and thus need to pay more for it as in long run you gain more than lose from having the option(or it's option that's never used because it's never worth it but that's super hyper rare case really. Even plasma on mephiston is worth risking though very rare. But still you CAN benefit from it so you need to pay something for it over identical gun without overcharge mode)

YAY HYPERBOLE! I love the fact you decided to channel your inner (deceased) Adam West, that or you think that Holy smoke is normal vernacular for anyone under the age of 40.

In case you hadn't noticed - a lot of special characters across the board got a whole lot cheaper. Almost like GW kind of wants to encourage us to actually use them, rather than have the enormous point-bloat whales of 6th and 7th edition. Even Magnus is cheaper. Or did you miss that? In fact, it looks like some of the units that were cheap and strong got more expensive and a bit weaker while the expensive and crap units...got stronger and cheaper. Hmm.

Almost like this was a conscious decision on the part of GW.

Should there be a price cut for a unique character? Yeah. Personally, I think so. Largely because for the past 4 editions they've been point-bloated whales that almost no one took. Did you honestly think GW wouldn't try to do something to encourage people to actually take those characters and play a narrative as it were?

With regards to Psyker on a unique special character that is likely to be functioning as the warlord at the same time? Hmmmmm. I should think the risk of nuking yourself on the table while being completely reliant on random dice rolls for the psychic powers to have effect could maybe be a factor there.

Also consider - Typhus' buff abilities are VERY faction specific. You have one that ONLY works on a specific type of unit and the other only works on units from a specific Legion - which currently has a very sub-par list that is missing key units that had been present in every incarnation of it from 3rd ed onwards. His psychic powers fall into the same faction specific nature - they only impact a certain keyword and again, one of the powers only affects the specific Legion once again.

Add to that the fact that Plague Marines and Poxwalkers are currently being considered to be overpointed as well. Add to the fact that Typhus isn't as resilient as he was before - T5 is easier to wound, DR now applies AFTER determining the number of wounds taken - he's also slower as well.

Perhaps the LoC will have more options. I suspect it probably will in a few months time. I suspect you're looking at a relatively sub-par set up for a character type and trying to compare it to something that isn't as resilient was it was before, actually has a lot more risk associated with it and surprise surprise has a lot more restrictions in what it can impact.

But HOLY SMOKES! Let's overreact and play the game of quotetag.

 Galas wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

AOS does the opposite. They have datasheets on net and points in yearly book they release. So far no updated points has been seen in AOS as of yet. Well except some previews.

Wrong. With the Blades of Khorne armybook they changed the point costs of Bloodreavers (They costed 6 points a piece, up to 7 a piece because they gained a 6+ save) and the Korgorath go from 80 points to 100 (because is weapon changed from 1 damage to 2 damage)

Aah right. Well still new book. Is that available on net? Main point is aos is doing opposite of datasheet in books, points ln net. And point book(gh) isyet to be updated so if 40k gets day 1 errata clearly different production style witk faster updates in net over slower updates in book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed - a lot of special characters across the board got a whole lot cheaper. Almost like GW kind of wants to encourage us to actually use them, rather than have the enormous point-bloat whales of 6th and 7th edition. Even Magnus is cheaper. Or did you miss that? In fact, it looks like some of the units that were cheap and strong got more expensive and a bit weaker while the expensive and crap units...got stronger and cheaper. Hmm.

I hope you realize the obvious that price decrease due to abilities is not same as discount for being unique?


And if gw did discount due to being unique then they are wrong. Any half competent game designer knows that is not valid reason to discount. Points need to be based on abilities but if you get discount for unique it is not.

Should there be a price cut for a unique character? Yeah. Personally, I think so. Largely because for the past 4 editions they've been point-bloated whales that almost no one took. Did you honestly think GW wouldn't try to do something to encourage people to actually take those characters and play a narrative as it were?

Then you wont make good game designer.

If nobody fielded them its cause they were overpriced. Correct solution isappropriate cost rather than undercosted.

With regards to Psyker on a unique special character that is likely to be functioning as the warlord at the same time? Hmmmmm. I should think the risk of nuking yourself on the table while being completely reliant on random dice rolls for the psychic powers to have effect could maybe be a factor there.

Again if not worth risk don"t cast. No risk. Any new player knows that.