|
xtothez posted:The new Character keyword is meant to be a replacement for the old Independent Character USR, so I wouldn't expect many nids beyond the Prime to have it. Huh, Heavy Plasma Cannon and regular Plasma Cannon have the exact same stats. Edit: Oh, except the Heavy causes a Mortal Wound on a 1 instead of removing the model.
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Yea i am not sure why they couldn't have just committed to putting every rule for a unit on one page. Every weapon they can take and ever rule for those weapons. Every point value and power points or what ever. Every army rule they can get. Sure they might place the rules for and they shall know no fear 150 times and a bolter like 25 times, but I think it would have made the datasheets actually useful. As it is I will likely never use them and just stick to battlescribe.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Yeah, this is looking a lot less streamlined than I hoped. It looks like some USRs are being made more unique (Look Out Sir and Feel No Pain, for starters), but some replacements just seem redundant. There's still a lot of redundant rolling and a few stubborn, unwritten rules that'll need some early game lookup too, although there's some enjoyment to loads of rolling and those remaining rules will probably be easier to grasp after a game or two. The special weapon rules still being their own list is just needless bookkeeping I was hoping this edition would axe. And the book structure is a lot less friendly to newcomers than I had hoped. The game looks way less bloated and frustrating than 7th, but it's definitely still flawed. I just hope A) it still ends ip the most fun 40k's been in years and B) it doesn't move back towards more bloat and instead continues streamlining. GW being GW, I'm bracing myself for B.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, just to calculate the cost of a land raider you have to look up its base cost (239), the cost of a twin lascannon (50 each), and the cost of a twin heavy bolter (17) 239+50+50+17 = 356 Keep in mind, this is a vehicle without the ability to switch out its weapons. The Crusader and Redeemer are completely different variants. Hurricane bolters somehow wound up a measly 4 points, by the way. This is such a stupid way of organizing things. I never write in my books, but I might start just so I can have everything on the datasheets. Safety Factor fucked around with this message at 19:20 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
They managed to make it worst than Sigmar, impressive.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Just give it a few months, in sure they'll start releasing Index card decks with the data sheet on one side and the point cost and the cost of any upgrades they can take on the flip side. All for the low low cost of $30.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
For calculaing points costs. They're probably relying on this app that's supposed to be coming.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:For calculaing points costs. They're probably relying on this app that's supposed to be coming. They don't even have an ETA for that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
How to calculate the points cost of a Thunderfire Cannon in 8th edition, by Games Workshop, age 42: Thunderfire Cannon - 28 points base Thunderfire Cannon (weapon) - 30 points Techmarine Gunner - 36 points base A servo-harness isn't a separate wargear item, but it's known to be two servo arms, a flamer, and a plasma cutter Servo arm - 12 points Servo arm - 12 points Flamer - 9 points Plasma cutter - 7 points (28+30) + (36+12+12+9+7) = 134 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
I really do not get the logic behind the scope on the new Bolt Rifles. I had originally just thought they were placed like that because of the scale of the sculpt or something but nope, the scope really is placed right behind the iron sights which blocks them entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Chain fists only do 2 damage 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:I really do not get the logic behind the scope on the new Bolt Rifles. I had originally just thought they were placed like that because of the scale of the sculpt or something but nope, the scope really is placed right behind the iron sights which blocks them entirely. Remember this guy?  It works the same way: vision through pure faith.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
So assuming Terminators have the same base cost (31)as the Chaos ones from the leak this morning. A bog-standard Terminator with Power Fist and Storm Bolter is going to run to 53 points, give one of them the classic Assault Cannon and that's 71 points. That seems pricey to me, even allowing for the extra wound and upgraded shooting. Edit: Also, drat son but this is the Age of the Smartphone. Sorry about your careful strategy of limited previews and steady buildup of Hype there GW Marketing. Deptfordx fucked around with this message at 19:44 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Abaddon seems decent, mostly because he buffs Black Legion to a surprising degree, and the halved damage thing keeps him form being focused too hard by deathstars. Abaddon deepstriking with a unit of combi-weapon wielding terminators is going to be scary. Combi-plasma with the rerolls are going to sting heavy units, and even against hordes you can fire off the bolter parts and can pretty much ignore the -1 hit penalty.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Edit: Also, drat son but this is the Age of the Smartphone. Sorry about your careful strategy of limited previews and steady buildup of Hype there GW Marketing. I totally expect bigger info dumps to start Tuesday. The new social media people seem much more agile and it's unlikely they don't have a contingency plan for what had happened prior to every big game release from every big company.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:So assuming Terminators have the same base cost (31)as the Chaos ones from the leak this morning. GW means well, but it really is impossible to fight an entire population of obsessed hams. Now someone snap some photos of the Ork rules. What about the army books do we actually need outside of the points values? Aren't the Data sheets free?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:So assuming Terminators have the same base cost (31)as the Chaos ones from the leak this morning. 70 point terminators and 350 point land raiders, I finally found why the game can take 90 minutes now. Everything but basic troops cost 50% more points.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Yeah. A basic old school Marine seems to cost 13 points. Bolt Gun and Pistol are both 0 cost. So you can field 4 regular Marines for 1 point shy of a classic Terminator. A Terminators much better, but 400% better?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
At least a handful of the wargear items have different costs for mooks and characters. Still feel it's stupid you have to figure out costs per model for equipment you have no choice over.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
In spite of everything they've said, this looks like traditional list building was something they just threw on as an afterthought. I don't think they have ever had a worse implementation for how to put an army list together. My excitement for 8th has taken a massive hit.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:In spite of everything they've said, this looks like traditional list building was something they just threw on as an afterthought. I don't think they have ever had a worse implementation for how to put an army list together. honestly this is all pretty hilarious
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
GW.........bad? Moola to the thread, repeat Moola to the thread.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
I imagine their app will be far more user friendly. I doubt I will use it, but I bet they will market how convenient it is.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
chutche2 posted:70 point terminators and 350 point land raiders, I finally found why the game can take 90 minutes now. Everything but basic troops cost 50% more points. If this is/were the case, that is/would be a very good thing for the game. The 'standard' game sizes of 1500-2000 points have crept ever upward over the years I've played the game (since around 2000). Currently your average 4' by 6' game table is completely rammed with units to such an extent it really inhibits maneuver. Deptfordx posted:Yeah. A basic old school Marine seems to cost 13 points. Bolt Gun and Pistol are both 0 cost. This, if it's true, is really worrying - hope their use of actual outside playtesters has helped them avoid obvious costing errors, but . . . Safety Factor posted:How to calculate the points cost of a Thunderfire Cannon in 8th edition, by Games Workshop, age 42: Lovely Joe Stalin posted:In spite of everything they've said, this looks like traditional list building was something they just threw on as an afterthought. I don't think they have ever had a worse implementation for how to put an army list together. This is just shocking. It majorly worries me that GW haven't given up their rather peculiar blind spots to 'competitive' play, ie the way almost everyone plays their game. Surely playtesters, editors, people to spot typos etc looked at their drafts prior to publishing, and immediately asked WTF!? Comrade Stalin there is bang on, it stinks of the points system being a clunky afterthought, relegated to its own index section, rather than right there on the datasheet where it'd be useful.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Predator autocannon heavy 2d3 gently caress yeah
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
At this point I'm hoping that GW at least realizes that this is a loving stupid way to handle points costs, and in three weeks/months comes out with an update that basically goes back to 7th edition's methods of pricing points costs. They're otherwise totally separate, so it's entirely possible that it happens. I don't expect it, but it's still not impossible. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
I'm just going to build this poo poo in battlescribe anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I'm just going to build this poo poo in battlescribe anyway. This should be the thread title. I have no problem with obtuse points references if it means GW can quickly update them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
S.J. posted:honestly this is all pretty hilarious I've been waiting for them to drop a bollock with this release, I wasn't expecting it to be something so fundamental and rudimentary as point cost layouts. Strobe posted:At this point I'm hoping that GW at least realizes that this is a loving stupid way to handle points costs, and in three weeks/months comes out with an update that basically goes back to 7th edition's methods of pricing points costs. They're otherwise totally separate, so it's entirely possible that it happens. Depending on whether or not they are already being printed, I would be surprised if the first actual Codex books don't have a more sane layout. There is no way this nonsense doesn't piss off a a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:In spite of everything they've said, this looks like traditional list building was something they just threw on as an afterthought. I don't think they have ever had a worse implementation for how to put an army list together. Yeah the points stuff is really poo poo. This was a solved problem 3 editions ago, why make it so complicated now?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
I'm mostly irritated that tanks and terminators are vastly more expensive and that's most of my collection other than 2 tac squads and sternguard.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:This should be the thread title. I have no problem with obtuse points references if it means GW can quickly update them. Don't get me wrong, I can see why they would want to be able to adjust points more easily, and I applaud the intent, but there had to be a better implementation than this. Personally I detest the third party programmes and have pretty much always done it by hand.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:This should be the thread title. I have no problem with obtuse points references if it means GW can quickly update them. GW is going to focus on their new line of models and making sure they sell. Anyone who thinks major time and energy is going to be spent making sure a model line that is over is balanced hasn't been in the hobby for long. If your lucky the rules for them will be strong when they come out so they stay relevant for a few editions.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Strobe posted:At this point I'm hoping that GW at least realizes that this is a loving stupid way to handle points costs, and in three weeks/months comes out with an update that basically goes back to 7th edition's methods of pricing points costs. They're otherwise totally separate, so it's entirely possible that it happens. This all has to do with being able to separate the point cost from the unit entry so they can address and rebalance later. The can issue a new 'points cost' sheet at any time as a PDF that you just slip into your index this way instead of reprinting a whole bunch of pages. Is it ideal or elegant? Not necessarily.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Yeah. A basic old school Marine seems to cost 13 points. Bolt Gun and Pistol are both 0 cost. They get 4 shots each at 12" and supposedly have something in addition to just having a 2+ that makes them resilient to small arms fire, and they no longer hit last in melee. You can deep strike at 9", unload 20 shots, and attempt a hits-first power fist charge any time you feel like in the first 3 turns. That's pretty loving sweet
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
TKIY posted:This all has to do with being able to separate the point cost from the unit entry so they can address and rebalance later. The can issue a new 'points cost' sheet at any time as a PDF that you just slip into your index this way instead of reprinting a whole bunch of pages. Yeah that's all fine and good, and also perfectly doable without this poo poo implementation of it. It's as simple as removing "Assault Bolter .... 7" from the table and re-pointing the Inceptor model to be 53 points, rather than having two separate entries for the same unit that can't ever take separate wargear.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Artum posted:They get 4 shots each at 12" and supposedly have something in addition to just having a 2+ that makes them resilient to small arms fire, and they no longer hit last in melee. Also 2 wounds. That's a pretty good reason for them to get more expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Most of the rules and data sheets for the Blood Angels leaked on Bolter and Chainsword. Really underwhelming from what I've seen so far, and they don't even give us any of the goodies we were missing from the vanilla codex despite the fact that this weekend they had a bunch of Centurions etc painted up in Blood Angel colors. Death Company get hit really hard. Hopefully this is more the new standard going forward than GW giving my army the shaft again...
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Don't look to the index books to make specific chapter by chapter changes like that. Those Centurions will most likely come in the BA codex.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Pendent posted:Most of the rules and data sheets for the Blood Angels leaked on Bolter and Chainsword. Really underwhelming from what I've seen so far, and they don't even give us any of the goodies we were missing from the vanilla codex despite the fact that this weekend they had a bunch of Centurions etc painted up in Blood Angel colors. Death Company get hit really hard. Hopefully this is more the new standard going forward than GW giving my army the shaft again... Link http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/334013-full-leaked-blood-angels-rules-other-space-marine-prices/?p=4759699
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:37
|
|