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.

Tsagualsa wrote:
This approach could have been improved by orders of magnitude if at least some upgrades, especially squad-level heavy weapons, had just '+10 pts each' tacked onto it. Nobody was expecting perfect balance, but at least acknowledge that e.g. a flamer and a plasma gun have vastly different average usefulness, and an additional Lascannon over a bolter is worth something.

I actually think they brought plasma down pretty well. The Hazardous rule being something that happens after and you can't avoid it with rerolls makes it a whole lot more risky. And then Overwatch being more flexible benefits flamers in some squads. There's still a difference, but I wouldn't put flamers down yet.

They made it so that there is no reason not to upgrade a Commissar with a plasma pistol. Literally you are wrong if you equip them with a bolt pistol.

This is the perfect microcosm of these points costs. Sacrifice one of the most iconic weapon/character combos in the setting on the atlar of simplification.

Justyn wrote:

Whirlwind...125
Predators 130/135.
Vindicator 205!!!!

Did you miss that the Vindi has higher toughness, a better save, and can fire its gun while in melee, AT the victims it is in melee with?

And it is an anti-everything gun while at it.

It occurs to me that since I'm going to do Genestealer cult for the obligatory "try it with an open mind" game, and my genestealer cult is all weird converted proxies, the whole max options thing doesn't really affect me. "This fire hose is the free Mining laser I'd be an idiot not to add to this unit. Really."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It could also be that this is the end of WSYWIG.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Allowing variable size units messes with what upgrades can be taken and makes it harder to balance.

Oh come off it. Variable squad sizes have been written into the DNA of this game since inception.

 Jidmah wrote:

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Voss wrote:
I really hope the article gives some context to the points. If its just a 'happy hunting for changes' article, its going to suck.

Well they're all 100% new, there's no changes to hunt.

Provide a baseline, then.

Latest tomorrow morning you will have full color-coded spreadsheets including a statistical analysis on reddit.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iw8TLYoPNbSvI2mzGLpmsL_EkMITv3oeKX4iRyt2iWA/edit#gid=0

 Trickstick wrote:
They made it so that there is no reason not to upgrade a Commissar with a plasma pistol. Literally you are wrong if you equip them with a bolt pistol.

This is the perfect microcosm of these points costs. Sacrifice one of the most iconic weapon/character combos in the setting on the atlar of simplification.

Yes, it's silly. Though I don't think he was doing much with that pistol in the past regardless. There are parts of this that never mattered and now we don't have to sweat those details.

I look at my Rubric Flamers and I see a real distinction. They're worse than bolters with less access to upgrades, but they're great on overwatch and with Ahriman. Any of those options are the same cost and I can just pick the tool I need rather than stressing costs. That's a much newer unit than some of the older and more abused ones though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Allowing variable size units messes with what upgrades can be taken and makes it harder to balance.

Oh come off it. Variable squad sizes have been written into the DNA of this game since inception.

I'm just giving the potential logic for the decision. This stuff is what I didn't like about Warmahordes. At the same time I can still customize squads unlike WMH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kestral wrote:
It could also be that this is the end of WSYWIG.

Not really, because units aren't dying together all the time so at some point you need to pull that heavy weapon off the table.

Pretty strong 1st Edition AoS vibes coming from the new point system paradigm. Not quite as bad, obviously, but possibly dictated by the same marketing goals.

GW is likely still chasing the wide market appeal they've seen WotC achieve when MtG went from a complex spell based game to a significantly less complex midrange fat body slugfest, though I do wonder if they're going to face pushback similar to what we've seen with AoS, now that they've built a number of alternatives for the possibly disenfranchised 40k players within their own ecosystem.

Voss wrote:

 oni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:
So... I like unit points being in blocks of models. This is how I've always thought it should be. However, all wargear being free is above and beyond moronic.

I suppose there is a small chance and I sincerely hope that we will see the return of wargear points with codexes. If not... we have a serious problem. And I do not say this out of emotion. I am legitimately concerned.

Points will be handled separately from dexes. I would not count on this at all.

Correct. I just wasn't clear. I'm hopeful we'll get a Munitorum Field Manual v2.0 when codexes start coming, but it may be wishful thinking.

They honestly can't wait that long. The philosophy is gonna stay, and we can't do anything about that, but some of these points are just _wrong_.
Melee tyranid warriors are more expensive than ranged warriors. Some things are better but cost the same as similar units (in the same codex even), other things are just way outside the boundaries set by everything else.

They've gotta do damage control way before autumn.

It's not so much the weapons lacking points costs; I can somewhat agree with the WarCom article about "every weapon option has a role to distinguish it from competing choices" / 'the right tool for the right job' so to speak, so long as it's ingrained into the design and consistent throughout. What bothers me the most is the 'optional' wargear items that grant unit enhancements not having a cost associated with them. Detachment enhancements have a cost, so why not 'optional' wargear that grant unit enhancements (e.g AdMech Broad spectrum data-tether, SM Storm Shields, Necron Resurrection Orb, etc.)?

 MinscS2 wrote:
My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.

This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?

(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)

This system works fine in AoS. Honestly no one who plays AoS complains that it is harder to make lists. The other thing, which is a white elephant that no one wants to admit, making people stick to fixed unit sizes means you have to make meaningful choices. It means that if you want more eradicators in a unit you must have 3 more, instead of sneaking in just one. You, as a player, actually have to make a choice. I don't know how many time in AoS I had to make a meaningful choice between units because I couldn't just slide 1 or 2 models around.

Now, to be fair, the system could have been "for a block of X pay Y", but since some of the boxes are weird and allow you to make units out of regular troops we have this system.

It's not so much the weapons lacking points costs; I can somewhat agree with the WarCom article about "every weapon option has a role to distinguish it from competing choices" / 'the right tool for the right job' so to speak, so long as it's ingrained into the design and consistent throughout. What bothers me the most is the 'optional' wargear items that grant unit enhancements not having a cost associated with them. Detachment enhancements have a cost, so why not 'optional' wargear that grant unit enhancements (e.g AdMech Broad spectrum data-tether, SM Storm Shields, Necron Resurrection Orb, etc.)?

The honest answer to that? People took like 5% of all the unit enhancements. Even Jarvis conceded that point and explained it as the reason why a lot of unit upgrades became stratagems instead of actual items. People were basically shunning a great deal of the cool plastic in the box in favor of what works and what's hot on the table. Those enhancements were in majority useless stuff people wouldn't even pay points for. So if people are unwilling to pay points for it then why should they cost points? There was no magical perfect scenario people had for many items, and there probably wouldn't be unless some insane rule was created for the item. Now it's all a wash. All equal in the eyes of the point god.

I think melee and ranged warrior point costs are just flipped.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, it's silly. Though I don't think he was doing much with that pistol in the past regardless. There are parts of this that never mattered and now we don't have to sweat those details.

I'd rather have "commissar pistol weapon" than this nonsense.

I came to drink tears. Not disappointed.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet but...

Goonhammer Reviews the New Warhammer 40k App
https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-the-new-warhammer-40k-app/

 oni wrote:
Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet but...

Goonhammer Reviews the New Warhammer 40k App
https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-the-new-warhammer-40k-app/

There’s also something which has been bothering me for some time: A number of units and datacards just don’t have model photos, or use generic images. As a company with a 3-billion dollar market cap, I’d like to formally invite Games Workshop to have someone paint a Death Guard Rhino or a Thousand Sons Maulerfiend. It’s pretty crazy this is still an issue.

I've long wondered if part of the reason this happens is simply them wanting to wait for a dedicated kit? I noticed this with the Tank Commander and Infantry Squad in the Guard setup.

It’s usually when they don’t have a currently painted Studio version I think.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Those point difference make sense to me. Fexes are softer.

Mostly comparing the Carnifex to the regular Dread here: same statline but a 40 point difference. No way the Dreads special rule is worth 40 points over the Carnifex' special rule.

(And the Haruspex just seems very underpriced in general, but there seem to be quite a few outliers, both in terms of being underpriced and overpriced.)

Edit: Tyranid Warriors are also weird as heck. Not only is the melee-version absurdly more expensive than the shooty-version, why would you take the melee-version to begin with when Tyrant Guard are almost the exact same cost?
I have only read trough a handful of the factions but already seen a fair amount of glaring "huh?"s.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.

This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?

(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)

This system works fine in AoS. Honestly no one who plays AoS complains that it is harder to make lists. The other thing, which is a white elephant that no one wants to admit, making people stick to fixed unit sizes means you have to make meaningful choices. It means that if you want more eradicators in a unit you must have 3 more, instead of sneaking in just one. You, as a player, actually have to make a choice. I don't know how many time in AoS I had to make a meaningful choice between units because I couldn't just slide 1 or 2 models around.

Now, to be fair, the system could have been "for a block of X pay Y", but since some of the boxes are weird and allow you to make units out of regular troops we have this system.

I'll preface this with perhaps I have missed something saying players can field understrength units. In which case, whoops. Ignore. But otherwise...

Unit size is a bigger issue for 40k because of Transports. That's not an issue that pops up anywhere near as often in AOS. While they have increased a number of Transport's capacities to accommodate characters, that doesn't solve all of the problems. I hate to say it, but this is one aspect where Power was superior, as it was usually (always?) worded in a way that allowed a unit of 5 models for X or 6 to 10 for 2X. I could (in principle) accept GW justifying making players pay for 1-3 non-existent members as the cost of the unit being much more effective in a transport than on foot. Additionally, there are characters built from boxes like we see with Custodes and Harlequins. To keep to their design philosophy, they've had to accommodate them in a very awkward manner, which leaves out anyone else who so much as thinks of converting a Lieutenant from an Intercessor or a Succubus from Wych. Can't just run those units as one model short anymore because you've used that body elsewhere. That's an issue AoS shares.

How much does drones cost for a crisis suit unit? I dont understand quite.

What are we waiting to see next?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What are we waiting to see next?

We need to wait and see for what the white knights think we should wait and see for next.

fething absurd, isn't it?

No One Important wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
My main issue with the points (other than them seemingly being a bit all over the place*) is the stupid decision to force units to be either min-size or max-size - except for the units where they can be more or less any size, for some effing reason.

This will make list-building harder for no good reason. Absolutely no good reason. -_-
What's wrong with simply having the previous system of "XX pts per model, unitsize Y-Z"?

(*Redemptor and Brutalis Dreads being 220/225 pts and then the Ballistus is 170...
Regular Dreads being 160(!) and then we have stuff like Carnifexes and Haruspexes being 120/125 pts, etc etc.)

This system works fine in AoS. Honestly no one who plays AoS complains that it is harder to make lists. The other thing, which is a white elephant that no one wants to admit, making people stick to fixed unit sizes means you have to make meaningful choices. It means that if you want more eradicators in a unit you must have 3 more, instead of sneaking in just one. You, as a player, actually have to make a choice. I don't know how many time in AoS I had to make a meaningful choice between units because I couldn't just slide 1 or 2 models around.

Now, to be fair, the system could have been "for a block of X pay Y", but since some of the boxes are weird and allow you to make units out of regular troops we have this system.

I'll preface this with perhaps I have missed something saying players can field understrength units. In which case, whoops. Ignore. But otherwise...

Unit size is a bigger issue for 40k because of Transports. That's not an issue that pops up anywhere near as often in AOS. While they have increased a number of Transport's capacities to accommodate characters, that doesn't solve all of the problems. I hate to say it, but this is one aspect where Power was superior, as it was usually (always?) worded in a way that allowed a unit of 5 models for X or 6 to 10 for 2X. I could (in principle) accept GW justifying making players pay for 1-3 non-existent members as the cost of the unit being much more effective in a transport than on foot. Additionally, there are characters built from boxes like we see with Custodes and Harlequins. To keep to their design philosophy, they've had to accommodate them in a very awkward manner, which leaves out anyone else who so much as thinks of converting a Lieutenant from an Intercessor or a Succubus from Wych. Can't just run those units as one model short anymore because you've used that body elsewhere. That's an issue AoS shares.

I agree on the converting side, although I have always found I had more wyches I ever needed because of the ones on the Venom. Same goes for all the Kabalites on the Raider, but I understand your point. It is, however, a niche case which I imagine GW was willing to sacrifice. I will, however, admit that I would have wanted kabalites to come in blocks of 5 and then max at 10, but the design gods are sometimes fickle.

Regarding transport I imagine that will be a thing that will see changes throughout the life cycle. They did try, however, to address it with the combat squading rules that follow the vehicles.

I also could imagine that Custodes and Harlequins will eventually see single sprue leaders released and the squad goes into more logical squad sizing. Only time will tell I guess. Personally I find it awkward and I have Custodes and Harlies. Hated getting a box and having to sacrifice a whole model to make a character. Usually meant I needed more boxes.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What are we waiting to see next?

Games to be actually played?
We've got all we need for theories now, but sometimes theory isn't enough.

I've yet to look over the points, but I'm prepared to be sad.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Those point difference make sense to me. Fexes are softer.

Mostly comparing the Carnifex to the regular Dread here: same statline but a 40 point difference. No way the Dreads special rule is worth 40 points over the Carnifex' special rule.

(And the Haruspex just seems very underpriced in general, but there seem to be quite a few outliers, both in terms of being underpriced and overpriced.)

Edit: Tyranid Warriors are also weird as heck. Not only is the melee-version absurdly more expensive than the shooty-version, why would you take the melee-version to begin with when Tyrant Guard are almost the exact same cost?
I have only read trough a handful of the factions but already seen a fair amount of glaring "huh?"s.

They're not perfect by any stretch. There's also faction considerations like Oath. The dread can also tank shock and smoke and I would place the reroll aura as more powerful than blistering assault.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What are we waiting to see next?

It's simple. We play games and try out the new ruleset. See what works, what's cool, what's stupid, and so on and so on.

Welcome to the Wild West.

 triplegrim wrote:
How much does drones cost for a crisis suit unit? I dont understand quite.

Zero. W6 4++ battlesuits if you want, but beware of the secondary.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What are we waiting to see next?

We need to wait and see for what the white knights think we should wait and see for next.

fething absurd, isn't it?

What? Can't think for yourself?

Probably "wait and see if the codex comes with equipment costs and these are a get you by".

Personally I think they've shat the bed and don't know what to do, maybe they're trying to force the game back into being more casual, who knows.

Wait and see for me: is the endless doooom from sisters and DG justified on the table, let's get some events in.

Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
What are we waiting to see next?

It's simple. We play games and try out the new ruleset. See what works, what's cool, what's stupid, and so on and so on.

Welcome to the Wild West.

From the outside looking in, looks like GW is using the user community as their ongoing beta test. Giving me very strong Privateer Press, Mk3 Warmachine vibes.

Good luck

Boosykes wrote:
Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?

The long and short of it is: Fixed squad sizes for most units, or increments of *Multiples of Boxes*, and all Upgrades/Equipment are free. Draw your own conclusions.