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.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Troupe
5 models............................................................ 75 pts
6 models............................................................ 90 pts
11 models .......................................................165 pts
12 models .......................................................180 pt

They're 15 points per model, GW. Really. This is how math works.

Man that's weird. Is this for transports or something?

I don't know. Necron Lokhust destroyers are similar, and its definitely not for transports

Lokhust Destroyers
1 model .............................................................. 30 pts
2 models............................................................ 60 pts
3 models............................................................ 90 pts
6 models..........................................................180 pts
Lokhust Heavy Destroyers
1 model .............................................................. 45 pts
2 models............................................................ 90 pts
3 models..........................................................135 pts

Just... why?

It's pointed in multiples of boxes.
Troupe - 1 box of 6 models. Can build 6 clowns, or 5 + Troupe Master. Can build units of 5, 6, 11 or 12 depending on whether you have 1 or 2 boxes and/or you built the Troupe master.
Lokhusts, come in either a set of 1, or a set of 3, and 1 can be used for a Lord (for no penalty building a unit of 2 in the GW approved manner).
Heavies, multiples of 1 per box.

10th is so simple - you don't even have to do maths.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So what is the point of writing in Rippers entry ''All models in this unit can each be equipped with 1 spinemaws.'' if it is free so I would be dumb not to take it?

You could be huffing Butane by the bottle, like GW writers, and just not take it. Or having old models that are not WYSIWYG, something like that.

Tsagualsa wrote:
At least that's cleared up:

Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Damage characteristics can never
be modified below 1. The exception to this is where a rule specifies
that you can change the Damage characteristic to 0, where this is
applied before any other modifiers

Yeah that was another big one. Not sure why they waited to give out the rest of the core rules, though.

They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

Voss wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
At least that's cleared up:

Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Damage characteristics can never
be modified below 1. The exception to this is where a rule specifies
that you can change the Damage characteristic to 0, where this is
applied before any other modifiers

Yeah that was another big one. Not sure why they waited to give the rest of these rules, though.

This one is also extremely dumb, and will get people by surprise:

Characteristics of ‘20+"’, ‘-’, ‘*’ and ‘N/A’ can never be modified.

Would a [Titanic] or [Macro] keyword have killed you, GW?

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

That's been abundantly clear since the Armour of Contempt patch in 9th...

We'll have to see how bad the anti-psyker meta is...

■ Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

Why are plague marines 5 and 10 when their box sells 7?

It should at least be 5,7,10 models

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We'll have to see how bad the anti-psyker meta is...

■ Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models.

so kastellans are now vulnerable to anti-infantry, makes sense i guess

 Grimtuff wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

That's been abundantly clear since the Armour of Contempt patch in 9th...

but this is not 9th, anything prior is useless as reference

And no they don't know what they are doing as some assumed that there is this rule somewhere while others did not and wrote it into the datacard

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We'll have to see how bad the anti-psyker meta is...

■ Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While
this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords
of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to
units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made
against units, not models.

so kastellans are now vulnerable to anti-infantry, makes sense i guess

Yes, obviously. There is just no other way to resolve attacks, it absolutely has to be against an unit when your whole attack sequence is written under the explicitly stated assumption that you resolve the attacks one-by-one on a model-per-model basis anyway.

 kodos wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

That's been abundantly clear since the Armour of Contempt patch in 9th...

but this is not 9th, anything prior is useless as reference

And no they don't know what they are doing as some assumed that there is this rule somewhere while others did not and wrote it into the datacard

It's presumably the same team writing it, no? Past actions infer what they'll do in the present and they have delivered utter gak here.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

 bullyboy wrote:
Why are plague marines 5 and 10 when their box sells 7?

It should at least be 5,7,10 models

at a guess whoever wrote the rules has never seen a box of them

OK, even I'm at the point of openly saying they've lost the plot.

I've been largely positive about most of the changes so far, or at least neutral until we have a fuller picture. We have that fuller picture, and it's pretty bad. The comment in the article about how upgrades are free because everything has been carefully crafted to have a specific role is, frankly, bullgak. Better designers may have been able to accomplish that, but it's pretty obviously untrue here. For example (just the first one that popped into my head): Death Company marines should literally never be equipped with chainswords because the power weapon is free and strictly better. It's a similar story with the bolt pistol. It's now just wrong to equip them with the classic loadout of BP/CS instead of at least Plasma Pistol and Power Weapon. Then there's all the rubbish about this making life easier, because apparently adding short columns of small numbers is too much effort nowadays.

The rules commentary is simultaneously a welcome document and frustratingly inconsistent. Moist of it is useful additional clarification. Then you have things that really should be in the core rules, like the definition of "one shot" or "below starting strength" for 1-model units. It feels really stupid to have the rules for those two things plastered all over the datacards only to repeat them here, yet also have the damage reduction rules exclude the commentary info from the datacard. If I was being uncharitable I'd suggest GW completely missed these interactions before sending stuff to the printer and hurriedly added them to the commentary document.

Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.


----
just yesterday I was thinking necron flayed ones look a lot better. With points, I'm confused.

10 Warriors 120
10 Immortals 140
10 Deathmarks 130

10 Flayed Ones 140
Really?

Zachectomy wrote:
They really have no idea what they're doing, do they

Not even a little bit.

Aha, gak does not stack:

Regardless of the source, if a model, unit, weapon or attack
has multiple instances of the same Core ability, those abilities are
not cumulative, and only one instance of that ability can take effect
at any one time. If that ability has a number after it (e.g. [SUSTAINED
HITS 1], Scouts 6"), the controlling player must choose which instance
of that ability to apply each tim

Explicitly, Sustained Hits et al don't:

Example 3: A model makes an attack with a heavy bolter, which has
the [SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability. The attacking model is also affected by
a Stratagem that says ‘Until the end of the phase, ranged weapons
equipped by models in your unit have the [SUSTAINED HITS 2] ability'.
When resolving attacks with that heavy bolter this phase, the
controlling player cannot use both instances of [SUSTAINED HITS];
they must choose which one to use, so choose the more powerful
[SUSTAINED HITS 2]

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

I'm normally 100% behind you daed but you cannot parse the wild difference of a battle wagon without upgrades vs 1 with 4 big shootas, a lobba, a kannon and deff rolla at the same points.

 bullyboy wrote:
Why are plague marines 5 and 10 when their box sells 7?

It should at least be 5,7,10 models

An interesting point. If we were to go by box sizes they should be 7 only or max 14.

To be honest I think GW fubar'd their boxes up a long time ago.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

Oh, no. We agree that this creates a scenario where you MUST upgrade for those types of units. There's more nuance to what I had posted.

Hmm, I generally appreciate the simplifications, most options were already either must-takes or useless, so might as well just bake it into the unit cost.

Sure, there are still some crincles to iron out, I bet we'll see quite a few datacards updated in the coming months, but in overall I think it's great.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They have an idea - it just doesn't jive with our current sensibilities. To some degree upgrades costing points doesn't matter much and they just make us feel good, but some things might deserve a bump. At the same time it feels like we're still in beta and we're going to find out what things need those bumps.

sorry Daed but i really can't agree with the idea that upgrades costing points doesnt matter. Its the core concept of balance, different weapons that are straight up better are NOT worth the same points.

It works with AoS because AoS has tradeoffs for every options

sword
1" range, 3 attacks, 3+ to hit

spear
2" range, 3 attacks, 4+ to hit

there is no world where a lascannon and a boltgun are worth the same

Which is why I imagine that the lascannon(or equivalent) is baked into the total point cost. I mean, we have stronger weapons in AoS which usually amounts to 1 in 10 carrying it. I imagine GW wants something similar here.

Well I'm glad most of my Acolytes had hand flamers or mining weapons already.

Why... why would you possibly take them with autopistols now? Literally they are objectively worse in every way for the same points.

What a stupid, badly executed concept.

Voss wrote:
Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.


----
just yesterday I was thinking necron flayed ones look a lot better. With points, I'm confused.

10 Warriors 120
10 Immortals 140
10 Deathmarks 130

10 Flayed Ones 140
Really?

It seems they priced the book and all the bits baseline in the legionaires nope. no issue at all with free upgrades...

 Oguhmek wrote:
Hmm, I generally appreciate the simplifications, most options were already either must-takes or useless, so might as well just bake it into the unit cost.

Sure, there are still some crincles to iron out, I bet we'll see quite a few datacards updated in the coming months, but in overall I think it's great.

It's certainly better suited to modern-style boxes like e.g. the Desolator Squad or whatever, where you have pretty much no options and your available options are sidegrades, instead of legacy squads like the humble Tactical Squad with their variety of choices. The extreme consolidation (reduction in options) for Combi-Weapons, Deathwatch etc. is obviously a symptom of their burning need to squish everything into the powerlevel-with-free-upgrades mould.

 oni wrote:
Holy feth! The Rules Commentary is longer than the fething Core Rules. What the literal feth?!?!?!

I would recommend trip to check your evesight if you think 18 pages longer than 61

 The Phazer wrote:
Well I'm glad most of my Acolytes had hand flamers or mining weapons already.

Why... why would you possibly take them with autopistols now? Literally they are objectively worse in every way for the same points.

What a stupid, badly executed concept.

PL concept and PL-ification. I warned people in 9th that this would happen...

I guess i should rename myself to Not Nostradamus.

Voss wrote:
Huh. So.

10 Intercessors... 190
10 (man) Tactical Squad.... 175

Chaos Marines
10 Legionnaires... 200.


----
just yesterday I was thinking necron flayed ones look a lot better. With points, I'm confused.

10 Warriors 120
10 Immortals 140
10 Deathmarks 130

10 Flayed Ones 140
Really?

Legionaries makes some sense since they have access to more upgrades. I haven't looked deeply at Necrons yet so no comment there.