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.
2017/11/28 01:11:31
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Fafnir wrote: Thing is, it doesn't matter if the rest of the book is trash. The rest of it looks like it'll be great for the people inclined to care about it. I hope those people that manage to find appeal in everything in the book get some real quality material out of it.
But then there's the significant portion of the community who has to also pay for it just to keep up to date (in what a lot of people will agree is likely not a desirable direction in the first place) who don't get anything out of it. To us, it's bloat, tacked on to justify the price tag on something that shouldn't have one to begin with.
This is such crap.
First, there is a loud minority who are sitting on the internet bitching and complaining. NOT a majority. MOST people who buy the book are interested in the missions at the very least.
That's just as much a baseless assertion as Fafnir's. Neither of you have any meaningful data on what 'most people' think of the book.
Like it or don't like it, there are certainly reasons for both, especially for people who don't care about certain aspect of it. But nothing 'proves' it to be trash OR amazing.
When did I ever say most people would be in the same boat as me? I said a significant portion. Not most. Now, I definitely don't have any market research to back up my claim, but I'd argue that the outcry on Dakka shows at least a notable portion of the community falls in that boat.
Adding to this a lot of people are upset at the way this is being handled. The armies that were largely left out have nothing but rumors to keep them hopeful for the next 2 months minimum. Even just a simple "Good news: You are next! Bad News: that means you don't get updated in CA" would have softened the blow. Yes I know there are rumors that Tau and Necrons are next, but until GW confirms that, we know just as much about plastic sisters being next. Bundling narrative missions and Pimp-my-Landraider with a points update forces people to buy things they don't need. A really simple fix would have been to do almost exactly what they did with the main rulebook and have a separate sheet offered for free at GW stores containing the very basics you would need (point changes), but allowing people to buy CA so they get the new missions if they want. All of this is before you even take into account the impact the contents of the book will have on the game.
TLDR; There's plenty of reasons to be upset at how this was mishandled regardless of how you happy you are with the content itself.
2017/11/28 01:38:37
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Has GW said anywhere that the points changes won't be available free?
Are the folks who are complaining so bitterly about the cost of a book containing stuff they don't want utterly incapable of simply copying the points adjustments into their existing book?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/28 02:03:10
Mousemuffins wrote: Has GW said anywhere that the points changes won't be available free?
Are the folks who are complaining so bitterly about the cost of a book containing stuff they don't want utterly incapable of just copying the points adjustments into their existing book?
They likely won't. At least not yet. They bundled it with value-add stuff, but they won't always have something big to go with it.
2017/11/28 02:06:42
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
GW has given no indication that they'll be releasing the new point values for free. And until they give any indication as to otherwise, I'll stick with the assumption that they won't, since they're currently going to be charging for them. But, hey, if GW does end up doing the unexpected, I'll be amoung first to turn around and say that I was wrong and that they did the right thing with their distribution, even if I disagree with a lot of their adjustments themselves.
Now, I can copy the point values into my book, and I'll likely end up doing that. But at the end of the day, CA still comes across as some (poorly executed) point changes with a bunch of extra junk thrown on top to justify a price tag, instead of a collection of cool supplementary material to enrich my games.
2017/11/28 03:10:49
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Fafnir wrote: GW has given no indication that they'll be releasing the new point values for free. And until they give any indication as to otherwise, I'll stick with the assumption that they won't, since they're currently going to be charging for them. But, hey, if GW does end up doing the unexpected, I'll be amoung first to turn around and say that I was wrong and that they did the right thing with their distribution, even if I disagree with a lot of their adjustments themselves.
Now, I can copy the point values into my book, and I'll likely end up doing that. But at the end of the day, CA still comes across as some (poorly executed) point changes with a bunch of extra junk thrown on top to justify a price tag, instead of a collection of cool supplementary material to enrich my games.
Can also point at General's Handbook and the Warscroll Builder app. GHB brought out new points, Warscroll Builder app got the new point values added in free.
2017/11/28 03:12:24
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Can also point at General's Handbook and the Warscroll Builder app. GHB brought out new points, Warscroll Builder app got the new point values added in free.
That's more of a stop gap to let people start using models. I think they'll probably do it in the future, but not likely with this book.
AoS is the red headed step child and needed more good will to get it going again and then the dynamic sort of just stuck in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/28 03:13:33
2017/11/28 03:21:14
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
For what it's worth, that's basically an index page they forgot to print until the last second. I doubt even GW could get away with charging people for those Primaris rules so shortly after the release of the Index.
That said, it's still a good point. I guess I can expect them to have some understanding of modern distribution. I can only hope they do right.
2017/11/28 03:21:32
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Can also point at General's Handbook and the Warscroll Builder app. GHB brought out new points, Warscroll Builder app got the new point values added in free.
That's more of a stop gap to let people start using models. I think they'll probably do it in the future, but not likely with this book.
You seem to be ignoring the reason I linked to it. Yes, it was a "stopgap to let people start using models"...but it was also specifically done to allow for people to not have to buy an extraneous book in order to have points and/or stats for a unit they wanted to field.
AoS is the red headed step child and needed more good will to get it going again and then the dynamic sort of just stuck in.
Oh please. People whined and moaned that they "needed points", and so we get the first GHB with point values. The next year we get GHB II and the Warscroll Builder app...which gives us free points values.
It's one thing to pretend that this is somehow the "dynamic" but it blatantly flies in the face of the nonsense peddled about how Chapter Approved and/or General's Handbooks are "content locking" points values.
2017/11/28 03:24:13
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Fafnir wrote: For what it's worth, that's basically an index page they forgot to print until the last second. I doubt even GW could get away with charging people for those Primaris rules so shortly after the release of the Index.
The bit you're ignoring is that those rules were printed after Codex: Space Marines was released. It was a PDF that was continually updated as the new units came out.
2017/11/28 03:25:29
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Fafnir wrote: For what it's worth, that's basically an index page they forgot to print until the last second. I doubt even GW could get away with charging people for those Primaris rules so shortly after the release of the Index.
The bit you're ignoring is that those rules were printed after Codex: Space Marines was released. It was a PDF that was continually updated as the new units came out.
This I did not know. I've done what I can to retreat from Space Marine saturation lately.
2017/11/28 03:34:33
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
I don’t fault your maths here, but I think there are a couple of flaws in the fundamental premise of your workings.
The first thing I want to point out is that if any weapons are part of a unit’s base cost (such as the primary weapon of the tanks we’re considering), you cannot simply say a 25% increase in durability should translate to a 25% increase in cost. Rather, a 25% in cost would require a 25% increase in both durability and firepower. Even then, it still shouldn’t be worth 25% more as stacking more durability on a single model and more firepower on a single weapon is less inefficient due to the possibility of overkill and the common existence of Mortal Wounds which subvert durability completely. Overall I think a model with a single weapon with 100% durability and 100% more firepower on the main weapon should be something like 95% more expensive to make it justifiable over just taking two of the cheaper model and splitting your risk. I think your reasoning shows you have somewhat similar thinking, but I think you go quite deep into an apples to oranges comparison.
A far better comparison IMO would be to compare the Typhon to the Hellhammer. Their statlines and main weapons are very similar, much moreso than a Knight or Baneblade’s.
For these comparisons, I’ll only consider the base costs. The tanks have different auxiliary weapon options, but for vehicles this large capable of firing all weapons to full effect, I think it’s fair to say the difference between a Typhon’s Lascannon and a Hellhammer’s Lascannon is built into the cost of the weapon. Well, not quite, if a BS4 weapon is 20 points a BS3 weapon should be 26-27 not 25, but near enough.
Spoiler:
The Dreadhammer cannon has a range of 48” if stationary, 24” if mobile, while the Hellhammer cannon has a fixed 36”. That’s probably a fair trade. They have the same Strength and Damage. The Dreadhammer has AP-5 to the Hellhammer’s -4 with Ignores Cover. The only time this will matter is against a 2+ armour model, with no Invulnerable save, not in cover - a rare case that oddly enough seems most common in heavy Space Marine tanks. In this edge case it is 20% more efficient. The Hellhammer averages 5.25 hits to the Dreadhammer’s 4.67. So one is 12% more efficient at all times, but the other is 20% more efficient in a certain uncommon circumstance. Overall, I’d think it’s fair to say a BS3 Dreadhammer vs a BS4 Hellhammer cannon is a wash.
The Hellhammer has 26 wounds to the Typhon’s 22, an 18% increase. The Typhon has a 2+ save. Against anti-tank weapons - generally AP -3 and -4 - the Typhon is 25% and 20% tougher respectively (4/6 shots going through vs 5/6 and 5/6 vs 6/6). Against heavy armour penetrating weapons - AP-5, the sorts of weapons designed to kill these things - the Typhon is no tougher at all. So the Typhon is generally 25%, 20% or 0% tougher due to its save, but the Hellhammer is 18% tougher due to wound count. This is pretty close, though the Typhon edges it by a few percent.
The Typhon is Toughness 9 to the Hellhammer’s 8. This is irrelevant against most weaponry (Strengths 1-7, 10-15, 18+). Against S8 and 9, the most common anti-tank weaponry, it is 50% and 33% more durable (3/6 successful wounds vs 2/6, and 4/6 vs 3/6). Against heavy anti-tank weaponry - S10-15 - it is 0% tougher. Against super-heavy anti-tank weaponry -S16 - it is 25% tougher (5/6 vs 4/6 successful wounds). So variously 0%, 25%, 33% and 50% tougher. I think it’d be fair to use the 33% value.
There are also two smaller incidental differences that will rarely have a big effect: the Hellhammer is better in close combat, and the Typhon’s 2+ save helps against small arms. The Hellhammer has access to better Stratagems, but the Typhon has easier acces to rerolls. I’d say the net tradeoff here is insignificant. However, the Hellhammer has Regimental Traits.
So we’ve got that the two have effectively the same firepower (remember, only talking about the main gun included in the base cost), some slight incidental advantages and disadvantages, the Typhon’s 2+ save is slightly better than the Hellhammer’s extra wounds but the Hellhammer gets Regimental Traits. All of that really comes to a wash, so the only noteable difference is the Typhon’s extra 33% toughness due to T9. Now, you can’t just say the Typhon should therefore be 33% more expensive for the reasons at the top of this post. As a guess that half of the tank’s points value is in its profile and half in its weapon, you could say that the Typhon should be 17-ish % more expensive. You can debate the accuracy of that last bit but let’s just say it’s in the ballpark of say 20%. If the Hellhammer’s base cost is 410, that puts the Typhon in the upper 400s. Its Index cost was 520, so it needed a drop of something like 25-50 points. Instead, it got a raise by 200.
Fellblade vs Baneblade:
Spoiler:
Similar, but the Fellblade catches up to the Baneblade’s close combat ability, which levels off the Regimental Traits advantage the Hellhammer showed over the Typhon. It also has the full 26 wounds, so the 20% durability increase of the 2+ is no longer offset by wound count. So far, the Fellblade has a 20% durability advantage over the Baneblade due to the 2+ Sv, and the same 33% due to T9 that the Typhon showed over the Hellhammer. A net 60% durability advantage to the Fellblade.
For firepower, there are two firing modes for the Fellblade - AE and HE. HE is simple - it averages 7 shots at BS3 for 4.67 hits, to the Baneblade’s 10.5 at BS4 for 5.25 - so 12.5% more firepower for the Baneblade. The extra damage point on the Baneblade also gives it an additional 100% efficiency boost against 3 wound targets by only needing one shot, and advantage the Fellblade can’t replicate on 2 wound models since the Baneblade also kills those in one shot. So for small targets, the Baneblade is 12.5% more efficient, and sometimes 125% more.
For the AE shell, vs:
T6 4+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 5/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 6.67 wounds for the Fellblade vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 3 = 10.5 for the Baneblade, a 57.5% advantage.
T7 or T8 3+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 5.33 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 3 = 8.75, a 64.1% advantage
T8 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 7, a 57.5% advantage
T9 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 5.25, an 18.1% advantage
So the Baneblade is something like 55% more effective than the AE shell, and 12.5% or occasionally 125% better than the HE shell. Call that something like 25% better overall.
So the Fellblade is 60% tougher but it’s main weapon is 25% less efficient than the Baneblade’s. Using the same system as above, the Fellblade should have dropped by 10-15% but increased by 30ish %, a net of say 20% increase over the Baneblade. Compared to the Baneblade’s 390 base cost, the Fellblade should end up somewhere a bit under 500 points base. Its Index base cost was 540, so it needed something like a 25-50 point drop too, and it also got a 200pt increase.
Falchion vs Shadowsword:
Easy, same 60% durability advantage as the Fellblade has, and same profile gun. The Falchion averages 4.67 hits to the Shadowsword’s 3, a 56% increase. So the Falchion is something like 58% ‘better’ by this metric, so it should be something like 50% more expensive than the Shadowsword’s 390 - landing around 600 points. It’s index cost was 640 base, so it also needed a 25-50 point drop but got a 200pt increase. Seeing a pattern yet?
You’re welcome to fiddle around with my figures there, but I’m interested to see you come up with something that challenges the conclusion that, based on the costs of their most direct competitors, the SM superheavies should have dropped a bit or stayed the same, not raised by 200.
2017/11/28 03:40:57
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Can also point at General's Handbook and the Warscroll Builder app. GHB brought out new points, Warscroll Builder app got the new point values added in free.
That's more of a stop gap to let people start using models. I think they'll probably do it in the future, but not likely with this book.
You seem to be ignoring the reason I linked to it. Yes, it was a "stopgap to let people start using models"...but it was also specifically done to allow for people to not have to buy an extraneous book in order to have points and/or stats for a unit they wanted to field.
AoS is the red headed step child and needed more good will to get it going again and then the dynamic sort of just stuck in.
Oh please. People whined and moaned that they "needed points", and so we get the first GHB with point values. The next year we get GHB II and the Warscroll Builder app...which gives us free points values.
It's one thing to pretend that this is somehow the "dynamic" but it blatantly flies in the face of the nonsense peddled about how Chapter Approved and/or General's Handbooks are "content locking" points values.
Don't worry - we're on the same side on this. I just think GW is going to be a little more financially prudent with their flagship for a bit.
You made some good points and i'm going to concede that the Typhon may be priced too poorly. I did some modeling on how many lascannon and melta shots it would take to bring each of them down using 500,000 shots each.
Note this modeling rolls dice to determine results so it does not do 3.5 average damage per shot - it rolls a D6 to determine that, to hit, to wound, and so forth. I'll test the code for errors, but i've been over it pretty thoroughly.
These charts show the % chance to kill the Typhon and the Hellhammer in a certain number of shots. This means the more area to the left of the chart equates to a death that comes sooner. Typhon is blue.
It appears the wounds defecit for the Typhon is like a wet blanket for it's survivability. Note that there is a 25% chance that you'll need to put 38 BS3 lascannon shots into it.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
This is of course a very narrow view of the scenarios out there, but certainly the most likely. The weapons are the other factor and i'll test them out when I have time tomorrow
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/28 04:37:39
2017/11/28 06:36:53
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Hollow wrote: No "The outcry on Dakka" is a couple dozen people in a body of hundreds of thousands. If you think the crying babies of Dakka are representative of anything then you are sorely mistaken.
Usually the same people who claim "the 6 people who play at my LGS hate AOS, so AOS is dead and no one plays it, GW should discontinue it"
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |
2017/11/28 06:39:39
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Mousemuffins wrote: Has GW said anywhere that the points changes won't be available free?
Are the folks who are complaining so bitterly about the cost of a book containing stuff they don't want utterly incapable of simply copying the points adjustments into their existing book?
You mean from photos from net? Well yes you could do but you realize that opens you up for not being able to play the game on the principle on not having LEGIT source of rules to show you. JPG or handwritten note in your book isn't trustworthy source. Only saving grace here being that likely your opponent has one. Unless he's ba/da/daemon/necron/tau that is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/28 06:42:05
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/11/28 07:12:46
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Mousemuffins wrote: Has GW said anywhere that the points changes won't be available free?
Are the folks who are complaining so bitterly about the cost of a book containing stuff they don't want utterly incapable of simply copying the points adjustments into their existing book?
You mean from photos from net? Well yes you could do but you realize that opens you up for not being able to play the game on the principle on not having LEGIT source of rules to show you. JPG or handwritten note in your book isn't trustworthy source. Only saving grace here being that likely your opponent has one. Unless he's ba/da/daemon/necron/tau that is.
I've literally never seen anyone ever enforce this, in casual games or in tournaments. And I play for the most part at Warhammer World, where it would likely be strictest of all.
2017/11/28 07:15:23
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Hollow wrote: No "The outcry on Dakka" is a couple dozen people in a body of hundreds of thousands. If you think the crying babies of Dakka are representative of anything then you are sorely mistaken.
Usually the same people who claim "the 6 people who play at my LGS hate AOS, so AOS is dead and no one plays it, GW should discontinue it"
Hey, I like AoS. It's a good game that managed to go through a bit of a rough patch in the beginning, but has been given the care it needed to become something solid. The GHB is really well done, and it's a shame that GW didn't learn from their mistakes and handle 40k in the same way.
2017/11/28 07:24:23
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
GI_Redshirt wrote: Also, with regards to Daemons, be aware that they got no points changes in CA as their codex drops in the beginning of January, meaning that even when Battlescribe does their CA updates Daemons will still be the same (other than FW unit adjustments).
So, Khorne and Horrors arent daemons ? What are they ? Eldar ?
2017/11/28 07:55:15
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
GI_Redshirt wrote: Also, with regards to Daemons, be aware that they got no points changes in CA as their codex drops in the beginning of January, meaning that even when Battlescribe does their CA updates Daemons will still be the same (other than FW unit adjustments).
So, Khorne and Horrors arent daemons ? What are they ? Eldar ?
It was the Chaos Space Marines section, technically. :p
2017/11/28 08:07:42
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
We really do need an official online army builder. Adding up lots of little numbers from different sources is the kind of thing computers are really good at.
2017/11/28 08:47:00
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Fafnir wrote: GW has given no indication that they'll be releasing the new point values for free. And until they give any indication as to otherwise, I'll stick with the assumption that they won't, since they're currently going to be charging for them. But, hey, if GW does end up doing the unexpected, I'll be amoung first to turn around and say that I was wrong and that they did the right thing with their distribution, even if I disagree with a lot of their adjustments themselves.
They have. They did so on Twitch last week as already posted by several people - you can even go to their Twitch page and watch the video for yourself. The matched play balance updates in March and September will be distributed via the online FAQ system. Which part of that implies a charge to you?
2017/11/28 10:09:42
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
No, you absolutely must buy, nay, Pre-order chapter approved immediately, as the world-wide ban on pens, pencils, sharpies crayons and all other devices that may perceivably leave a mark on paper came into effect at midnight last night.
Mousemuffins wrote: No, you absolutely must buy, nay, Pre-order chapter approved immediately, as the world-wide ban on pens, pencils, sharpies crayons and all other devices that may perceivably leave a mark on paper came into effect at midnight last night.
Pen&pencil still needs legit source and opponent could easily not trust your pencil marks. Those are after all THE easiest things to fake. We aren't even talking about the slight technical knowledge required to fake JPG photo but you would have your own markings on your handwriting. Without real source at hand you could just as easily write price discount for Guillimann rather than increase.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/11/28 12:03:39
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
You can also just take a list too big, as most people don't actually calculate just how many point are in their opponent's list to begin with.
And in a tournament, where it actually matters, the TOs would compare it to the actual costs anyways, not to your markings.
You are grasping at straws here.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
2017/11/28 14:03:35
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
I imagine you probably won't have to bring your copy of the rules to a tournament (at least, any BIG tournament) anyways because presumably they'd have copies of the rules.
At least, I'd HOPE they'd have copies of the rules O_o
2017/11/28 14:21:15
Subject: Re:Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
Hollow wrote: No "The outcry on Dakka" is a couple dozen people in a body of hundreds of thousands. If you think the crying babies of Dakka are representative of anything then you are sorely mistaken.
Usually the same people who claim "the 6 people who play at my LGS hate AOS, so AOS is dead and no one plays it, GW should discontinue it"
Hey, I like AoS. It's a good game that managed to go through a bit of a rough patch in the beginning, but has been given the care it needed to become something solid. The GHB is really well done, and it's a shame that GW didn't learn from their mistakes and handle 40k in the same way.
Just curious, Fafnir, but what in your mind are the differences between the way CA and the GHB have been handled? I won't be picking up CA since it doesn't seem to have anything substantial for Necrons, and I'm not really interested in narrative or open play in 40k, so I haven't really looked into it much.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
2017/11/28 15:31:13
Subject: Rumored point changes in Chapter approved 2017
5300 | 
2800 | 
3600 | 
1600 | 
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)