New 40k Rules Info and what could work for us!

[RuneBrush]

19 minutes ago, Killax said:

Certainly though the moral remains you can't shoot with most of those weapons on characters as easily and even more importantly you can't shoot with those weapons in melee at all. In addition the common weapons do not seem to have as much rend as you for example see in AoS. As the weapons you mention are a single inclusion per 10 and with the updated rules are an OR/OR not Add 1 for X and another one for X etc. 

Not always - I can field a unit of Long Fangs with 5 Lascannons or have two Meltaguns in a pack of Grey Hunters.  Either way (without going too far off topic), 40k armies are likely to have more long ranged ways of killing a single model than AoS currently does.

[daedalus81]

Yep - snipers will be key and not all characters can hide.  We still don't know if they allow multiple saves either.

[Sleboda]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/12/new-warhammer-40000-points-power-levels-may12gw-homepage-post-4/

 

I can't believe this is even the same company that called itself GW as recently as two years ago. 

Fantastic stuff!

[wayniac]

52 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/12/new-warhammer-40000-points-power-levels-may12gw-homepage-post-4/

 

I can't believe this is even the same company that called itself GW as recently as two years ago. 

Fantastic stuff!

Yeah I love this new stuff.  I really hope that the "power levels" see more play than just matched play all the time because "muh points".  I'd rather do a rough hey 100 power level or so estimate and be confident that things will be relatively even (not necessarily absolutely even) than min-max everything to find "the best" combinations to win.

[Sleboda]

Me too, @wayniac.

Somewhat unbelievably, actually.  I have always LOVED list building and tweaking, but I find that the more customization AoS is adding, the less I enjoy it.  A lot like X-wing, actually.  Or Manowar.

I just can't believe how transparent they are in that last post, with talk of reasons why points are kept separate,  how they acknowledge the competitive trends, and so on.

[AGPO]

I think it's a great move. Giving narrative it's own balancing mechanism really helps set it apart from matched too.

[AGPO]

I think it's a great move. Giving narrative it's own balancing mechanism really helps set it apart from matched too.

[RuneBrush]

Now I've seen how they'll work, power points are a really interesting way of tackling narrative and open.  I'm curious if they add something similar to AoS or leave things as they are?

The Daemon preview released over the weekend is very similar to their AoS counterparts, Daemonettes strike first and increase their AP to -4 when they roll a 6 to wound, Disgustingly Resilient still exists for Nurgle (ignore wound on a roll of 5 or 6) and Nurglings appear to have an infiltrate-esq deployment mechanism. Bloodletters gain +1 strength and attack on the charge (which also confirms that charging no longer grants a bonus attack).  Tzeentch daemons gain a bonus to their invulnerable save and Horrors split down into smaller ones - which will cost reinforcement points.

The command point stratagem mechanism was also revealed and basically allows you to spend command points to perform certain actions.  It's quite a clever mechanic and I think this is what 40k will get instead of command abilities (though I'm sure generals will get other bonuses).  Personally I quite like this idea as it represents you being the general rather than a model on the battlefield.

[someone2040]

I guess Generals Handbook v2 will be interesting to see whether or not the more fine-grained points transition back to Age of Sigmar.

Like a lot of things, I'm of two minds about this.

From a balance perspective, there are certain warscrolls and weapon options that are generally better.  Judicator Crossbows are generally worse than the Bow options. Tzaangor Enlightened without Discs are just handicapping themself. Blood Warriors get access to special weapons while Chaos Warriors don't (Although, one might argue that's included in the 20pts extra Blood Warriors pay for 10 models).

So more fine-grained points give better leverage to allow for balancing of warscrolls.

 

On the flipside, coarse grained points are fine, and GW have been testing the waters with some units and battalions that increment in 10's rather than 20's. Maybe incrementing in 10's and a years worth of experience will be enough to get things roughly more balanced again.

But more importantly, I think the bigger issue is:

If there's 2 points system, I get the feeling that one will take off while the other will stagnate. It smells a bit of GW wanting to sit on the fence. They don't want to ****** off their 40k playerbase by removing fine grained points. But coarse grained points worked well for Age of Sigmar. So lets just do both and everyone wins.

My suspicion though is that coarse grained points might end up being left behind, or being used in rare situations like Apocalypse battles (Where you just add up a bunch of stuff quickly). 

 

Dunno, guess we'll see. Interesting times indeed. 

[Killax]

With the comming of the 40K 8th edition I think it will still thake a while before the second edition of the Generals Handbook will come out. What I expect is to see some of the rules starting to overlap once it's clear how good the 8th edition 40K system is.

I base this on the fact that 8th edition 40K draws a lot of inspiration from the AoS design that's exceptionally good. Such as the use of Warscrolls, Battalions and even Battle Traits, all under different names offcourse. In that same vein I do expect Artefacts to show up in 40K but 40K will still have a better/larger attachment to point costs.

What I also believe is that GW realizes how benificial such point cost restrictions are for the game. From my perspective not only for Matched play either! Because it gives you a rough/good example of where you can start with your force and where you can build up to. In real life, having points means you can put a starting cost to your army. Wether fans of Open or Narrative play like that or not, it's still a fact that this hobby costs money and unless you have infinate sources of money to spend on this hobby infinite sources of armies are just a unrealistic approach to getting into the hobby. Everybody has to start out somewhere.

As a result of this I don't expect massive or drastical changes to point costs at all for the Generals Handbook, as improving the game has very little to do with how specifically costs are balanced. Now for some this might seem vague but the realistic approach of this is that new sources of rules will come and in quite a lot of cases certain costs are based on certain plans that are there for the future. So what I do expect to change somewhat more drastically is how:

- Missle Attacks work, most players seem to comment on these units requiring to be more expensive, while it's a rules change to Missle Attacks that could put them right into the correct direction.
- Summons, mostly relevant to the Death Alliance and they will need to recieve their own Battletomes to completely make sence of it all. I think that for Chaos it's slightly less of a thing because their forces are less focused around this ability. Likewise Death Summoning models seem to be costed with something for Summoning in mind.
- Battleline, either make it matter for something or remove it completely. 

Cheers,