Jump to content

5 things you learned so far 40k 8th


Recommended Posts

Played Fluger Last night. 1k Nids vs IG

1. Genestealers are FAST!

2. Broodlords are a BEAST! 

3. The new character shooting thing is interesting. We forgot about not shooting characters and Old One Eye died on turn three to massed lascannon fire. He should have lived longer, but we forgot, and in 7th edition it was good target priority...

4. Falling back to allow others to shoot melee units is mean.

5. Multi- assaults to tie up shooting squads is ace!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Munkie said:

It's also bad future proofing, because now they can't release another model that can take a void lance or another heavy weapon like a 30 point disintegrater cannon.

I disagree with you here. I think it's a fantastic bit of "future proofing," and that potential future revisions is exactly why they've separated the two. They will be able to fine tune the point values of units and weapons separately, so a change to one unit that can carry a dark lance won't require a cascading series of changes to everything else that can potentially carry it. 

The BIG thing for me recently when I was hashing out my first SW list was that you now have to pay for the gear that your units come equipped with.

On the plus side, you no longer need to pay for the standard issue gear on models that "swap" for something else. For example, the ubiquitous "heavy weapon guy" in a squad only pays for his heavy weapon, not his standard gun and then his heavy weapon. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ish said:

I disagree with you here. I think it's a fantastic bit of "future proofing," and that potential future revisions is exactly why they've separated the two. They will be able to fine tune the point values of units and weapons separately, so a change to one unit that can carry a dark lance won't require a cascading series of changes to everything else that can potentially carry it. 

 

On the plus side, you no longer need to pay for the standard issue gear on models that "swap" for something else. For example, the ubiquitous "heavy weapon guy" in a squad only pays for his heavy weapon, not his standard gun and then his heavy weapon. 

IN order to replace something you must first own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

IN order to replace something you must first own it.

So your position is that if I have a hive tyrant, I have to pay for the 2 pairs of Monstrous scything talons (41 points) and then replace both sets with ranged weapon say four deathspitters with slimer magots (40 pts). Artificially inflating the Tyrants points by 41 points? I do believe that is wrong. Why would anyone swap weapons if you had to pay the price of the weapon you're swapping out?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, PumpkinHead said:

3. The new character shooting thing is interesting. We forgot about not shooting characters and Old One Eye died on turn three to massed lascannon fire. He should have lived longer, but we forgot, and in 7th edition it was good target priority...

Does he have 10 wounds?  If so we played it right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ish said:

I disagree with you here. I think it's a fantastic bit of "future proofing," and that potential future revisions is exactly why they've separated the two. They will be able to fine tune the point values of units and weapons separately, so a change to one unit that can carry a dark lance won't require a cascading series of changes to everything else that can potentially carry it. 

I think you missed my point. Being able to fine tune weapons and units separately is a bonus, but it's only easy to do if you either pay for weapons separately in all instances, or you don't. 

The sometimes you pay for weapons, sometimes they're included means they've created an arbitrary divide. It is literally impossible for them to create a unit in the future that has a choice of paid for weapons and built-in cost weapons, that is costed appropriately. 

Continuing with my previous example, a raider has a choice of a 20 point dark lance, and a 30 point disintegrator cannon. If they wanted to come out with a "heavy raider" that could choose between a 0 point void lance and a 30 point disintegrator, then there is no appropriate points cost for that vehicle they could choose. They would have 4 options:

1) under-cost the platform assuming it would choose the disintegrator

2) over-cost it assuming it would take the void lance

3) change the cost of the void lance AND the void raven bomber to reflect their separate values

4) (and most likely) decide not to make the unit at all, because combining their 2 mutually exclusive pricing philosophies is problematic.

There is no upside to having two mutually exclusive pricing philosophies I'm the same game, much less the same army. All it does is artificially constrain future design space. 

Choose one philosophy and stick to it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Munkie said:

I think you missed my point. Being able to fine tune weapons and units separately is a bonus, but it's only easy to do if you either pay for weapons separately in all instances, or you don't. 

The sometimes you pay for weapons, sometimes they're included means they've created an arbitrary divide. It is literally impossible for them to create a unit in the future that has a choice of paid for weapons and built-in cost weapons, that is costed appropriately. 

Continuing with my previous example, a raider has a choice of a 20 point dark lance, and a 30 point disintegrator cannon. If they wanted to come out with a "heavy raider" that could choose between a 0 point void lance and a 30 point disintegrator, then there is no appropriate points cost for that vehicle they could choose. They would have 4 options:

1) under-cost the platform assuming it would choose the disintegrator

2) over-cost it assuming it would take the void lance

3) change the cost of the void lance AND the void raven bomber to reflect their separate values

4) (and most likely) decide not to make the unit at all, because combining their 2 mutually exclusive pricing philosophies is problematic.

There is no upside to having two mutually exclusive pricing philosophies I'm the same game, much less the same army. All it does is artificially constrain future design space. 

Choose one philosophy and stick to it. 

I agree with you in general, but I think it's a relatively moot point given that the easiest solution is to do what they did in other places: have different names for identical weapons.  So, in the future when there is a vehicle that has the same weapon but as an option, just rename it.  Done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pretre said:

3) change the cost of the void lance AND the void raven bomber to reflect their separate values

I think that's the most likely.

Could be. There's then the cascading effect of needing to change the weapon, the bomber, and then the dark scythe which is the bomber's other free weapon too. A lot of dominoes just to open up design space they closed off arbitrarily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Munkie said:

Could be. There's then the cascading effect of needing to change the weapon, the bomber, and then the dark scythe which is the bomber's other free weapon too. A lot of dominoes just to open up design space they closed off arbitrarily. 

Fair enough. I just think when they update points, they are going to update the whole thing. And any new units will come with that (generally a codex release).

How did AOS handle it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Hanaur said:

IN order to replace something you must first own it.

So the replace is for power level... in points you only pay for the wargear the model is equipped with, if it has been replaced you are no longer equipped with it (extrapolation) and don't pay points... codex xenos pg 130 but it says pay points for equipped stuff under every faction heading I've looked at. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pretre said:

How did AOS handle it?

The Matched Play point system in AoS works like the Power Level system in WH40k Eighth Edition moreso than the points system.

All units have a listed minimum number of models and an associated point value, you must purchase your units in these "blocks," up to the listed maximum size. For example, Ironjawz Brutes (big tough orc heavy infantry) come in five-man blocks at 180 Points. Brutes have a maximum size of 20. So a unit will cost 180/360/440/720 points and have 5-20 orcs in it. 

Unit upgrades, like banners, musicians, and the occasional specialist weapon don't have any extra cost.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ish said:

The Matched Play point system in AoS works like the Power Level system in WH40k Eighth Edition moreso than the points system.

All units have a listed minimum number of models and an associated point value, you must purchase your units in these "blocks," up to the listed maximum size. For example, Ironjawz Brutes (big tough orc heavy infantry) come in five-man blocks at 180 Points. Brutes have a maximum size of 20. So a unit will cost 180/360/440/720 points and have 5-20 orcs in it. 

Unit upgrades, like banners, musicians, and the occasional specialist weapon don't have any extra cost.

I meant they posted the GH and then put out army books that assuredly updated those points. Did they reprint the whole army worth of points or just the units they changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So looks like guard cant blob infantry squads anymore and infantry and conscripts are the only troop choice. 

FRSR is awesome, rapid fire 2 means 4 shots within 12 right? And bring it down now universally works on everyone not just vehicles 

Vox Casters seem more useful now while it doesnt seem like we have great aura bubbles

Also EVER vehicle got more expensive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...