New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Emperor Ming]

6 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

I have a feeling it's either going to barely affect anything or cripple multiple armies for years.

Probably, and knowing gw it will only be applied, after you have bought 3 of the new things

[Indy Techwisp]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Probably, and knowing gw it will only be applied, after you have bought 3 of the new things

 

From a TSons perspective I think it's gonna suck. Sure, maybe Bolter Rubrics will be cheaper now if they make Flamers a point increase choice, but considering the meta is to run massive bricks of a small number of units, making subsequent copies of a unit more expensive is gonna hurt small armies quite bad.

 

Especially since with Phalanx and Coven at 3dp our best options seem to be Spamming Defilers and Tzaangbots in Warpforged+Conclave or Spamming Daemon Princes (both Winged and feet) and SoT bricks in Hexwarp+Regen (coincidentally also the only way Hexwarp even functions since the other Daemons are still locked to Changehost).

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

The point step seems wrong for certain armies given how small the range is. I think TS, WE, EC, Drukhari and GSC especially. 

 

Most of the time people are taking multiples because GW hasn't bothered supporting the faction with a large enough miniature range. In some cases they just write bad rules so people take things where the rules aren't badly written. 

 

Either way this seems like GW punishing players for thier own ineptitude as a company. 

[Dr. Clock]

46 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

cripple multiple armies for years.

I mean... some growing pains are to be expected, though considering the frequency of points updates I think glaring issues can be dealt with in a few months. Considering they are also trying to make unit enhancements attractive, I'm going to guess it'll be more on the order of 20 point than 50 point increments for duplicating the stuff that's most routinely spammed due to being exceptional, not just due to being the only data-sheet in the niche for the army.

 

I've always maintained effectively a 'rule of 2' in my armies outside Battleline and transports, so I don't think this will change much for me or my frequent opponents. 

 

A modest disincentive to cherry picking seems like a good change to me, and lets them keep powerful stuff in the game while curbing the outsized effect of the top tier duplications. 

 

I do wonder when the new points will come out, though... and how long after that until the app swaps over.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

Edited June 10 by Dr. Clock

[DemonGSides]

It'll be a new app, they said that early on.

 

I don't expect the "Pay more for multiple" is going to be a standardized thing; it's not likely to be a rule that says "For every squad/unit after the first, costs go up by X amount of points.", it's going to be a "Rogal Dorns MFM entry has 3 points values, one for how much each iteration in the army is going to cost" and something like Cadian Shock Troops wouldn't have any extra cost for taking 4 bricks of them because its not a scary unit.

 

Then those same values can change alongside the MFM that comes out and can even be eliminated if a datasheet ends up faring worse over time as the game adapts and changes. 

Edited June 10 by DemonGSides

[jaxom]

I’m not too worried about the stepping be applied to Battle Line units or to armies with only 1-2 options for specific roles. Maybe they step the third Land Fortress (or its equivalent in another low unit count faction).

[Mogger351]

So correcting myself from my statement in the other thread, the limitations on warlords for iconcolast fiefdom are removed. So the allied cultists can be the warlord.

 

Or does this mean warlord as a concept is gone?

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

I have a feeling it's either going to barely affect anything or cripple multiple armies for years.

 

Or, more likely, both! 

[HeadlessCross]

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/8dl5ikuv/new40k-world-champions-top-5-changes/

 

New article. Buried in the part about points is an interesting comment about how some units have a tax on the second or third instance of the unit; Defilers specifically mentioned as getting more expensive as you have more of them.

 

Depending on how heavy the hand is on those increased points, it might make it better/cheaper for a one off of something that isn't oppressive and allow more army diversity. I like it. 

There's actual sweet spots for whether you want one unit or multiple, GW is simply too lazy to find them. It also harms armies that have less than 10 units in their range. I don't care how good the Emperor's Children Defiler is, they shouldn't pay a tax for taking more just because GW couldn't be arsed to give them Predators. 

[Valkyrion]

I'd like another rules interpretations clarification if I may (apologies if this should be elsewhere on the forum)

 

Fight phase.

Models engaged can kill models that aren't engaged if the unit is engaged - is that right?

For example, you end up with Abaddon alone against 20 genestealers. Only 6 stealers are in engagement range but lets say Abaddon rolls well enough to kill 10 genestealers. 

10 genestealers do in fact die, yes?

And then only the 6 that are engaged get to fight back (unless the opponent plucks them, for reasons I'm not clever enough to understand?)

[Dr. Clock]

5 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

harms armies that have less than 10 units in their range.

Right now we just don't know how the stepping is implemented. It could be that the stepping is different army to army depending on the availability of other things. It could be that 1 defiler is now less than it is currently for EC, but the second one makes them the same price on aggregate, and the third one comes at a premium. If we accept that the defiler is currently undercosted in most instances though, I wont be surprised if the first one stays the same, and then we pay +15-25pts for second and +30-50 for third. 

 

5 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

There's actual sweet spots for whether you want one unit or multiple

Honestly asking - what do you mean by this? Do you mean 'there is a sweet spot for a single point cost on each unit where they represent the same value whether taken as a one-off, or duplicated, or for the third, or more for Battleline or transports? Or that 'GW should pick point costs that encourage people to either take just one per army, or multiple, because at least then the 'correct' choices would be more obvious? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to understand.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Frogian]

10 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

There's actual sweet spots for whether you want one unit or multiple, GW is simply too lazy to find them.

Is there? If a unit is effective at its points value for a certain role in one area of the battlefield, why would it not be on another? not to mention that if you have a certain way you want to play and achieve objectives, having multiple of the same unit being able to do the same thing is often desirable

[Antarius]

To put it bluntly, if you're taking threes of a unit that is not battleline or similarly iconic for your army, then you know it's too good. We can probably come up with an example of an outlier where it's not the case, but by and large, redundancy is very desirable if you're competitive and/or WAAC and many units become exponentially more powerful/hard to deal with, the more of them you have.
Overwhelming your opponent in this way has been a bug (perhaps a feature, depending on who you ask) in every edition of the game, precisely because things don't just stack in a linear fashion, so it makes sense to try to deal with that fact in a way that doesn't punish the first, non-problematic, unit in order to solve the problem with the third.

Whether this new approach will solve that problem remains to be seen, of course. I'm pretty sure they're not going to apply it to all units across the borad, but right now we don't actually know anything about it, so I wouldn't panic or rejoice too much yet. 

Edited June 11 by Antarius

[Antarius]

14 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Probably, and knowing gw it will only be applied, after you have bought 3 of the new things

To be fair, the solution to that problem is not to buy three, unless you actually really want three.

Different strokes and all that, but if people rush out and buy things just because they expect them to be OP, I have limited sympathy when the inevitable nerf hits.

[Frogian]

16 minutes ago, Antarius said:

To put it bluntly, if you're taking threes of a unit that is not battleline or similarly iconic for your army, then you know it's too good.

 

Or it just fits in how you want to play? Or you just like that unit? Or you like a themed army? Or your army just doesn't have that many options for that very specific role? Or it just came in a good value boxset? 

 

I mean even if everything was the 'correct' amount of points then why not take 3 of the same unit? It's just a case of weighing up having backups if one gets destroyed/is in the wrong area of the table vs the bit of extra flexibility that might come from having 3 different but similar units. Which is to say redundancy should come at the cost of flexibility rather than more points ideally - and people taking 3 of a unit to have redundancy for their gameplan shouldn't be something that is looked on as bad. 

 

 

Edited June 11 by Frogian

[Rhavien]

We can only hope that GW uses this mechanic on some outliers and obvious suspects. It would be a shame if this applies to everything beside battle line and would dampen some thematic armies. 

It wouldn't hit me personally, as I tend to run everything just in singles or max twice, but I would grieve for themed bike armies and such like.

[Antarius]

33 minutes ago, Frogian said:

 

Or it just fits in how you want to play? Or you just like that unit? Or you like a themed army? Or your army just doesn't have that many options for that very specific role? Or it just came in a good value boxset? 

 

I mean even if everything was the 'correct' amount of points then why not take 3 of the same unit? It's just a case of weighing up having backups if one gets destroyed/is in the wrong area of the table vs the bit of extra flexibility that might come from having 3 different but similar units. Which is to say redundancy should come at the cost of flexibility rather than more points ideally - and people taking 3 of a unit to have redundancy for their gameplan shouldn't be something that is looked on as bad. 

 

 

It's not about someone being "bad" or the way someone might look at it as "bad" from a moral pov. It's about how stacking units impact the game.

 

Like I said, we can come up with examples where stacking units aren't good, but they're outliers. And if you want a themed army or want to play a certain way, isn't it still completely fair to look at how that might impact your opponent and the way it impacts their game (presumably, they want a chance not to be steamrolled because I only took vehicles, for example).

I mean, it's just a fact that many units don't stack in a linear fashion, three units are very often more than three times as good, so if I just really like the idea of an army with e.g. three Vindicators, why would I feel that I'm being punished if the subsequent Vindicators are priced according to how good they're actually going to be in the game?
 

Units being fine (or at least "fine") on their own but stacking too well has always been a known issue, for as long as I've played the game. It's why the "rule of three" exists in the first place and it used to be completely standard to comp some units for events and the like; this way I can still bring my three Vindicators if I want to. Hell, if it's well implemented, people won't even give me stinkeye for doing so.

But as always, it's going to depend on how it works in practice.

[redmapa]

Lol I still remember when you had to take more than 1 land raider because they got blown up way too easily. However this is implemented it will probably just turn rule of 3 into rule of 2 in practice because the third model might be way too expensive.

 

I just hope it doesn't make armies that rely on numbers like Guard collateral damage but I fully expect it to just punish thematic armies, want 3x3 assault intercessors and 3x3 van vets? Pay the tax! Triple LR Crusader in your BT list? TAXED! There are other reasons to take several of one unit in your lists than just power gaming, min maxxers just gotta ruin everything for the rest, tale as old as gaming.

[ThaneOfTas]

2 hours ago, redmapa said:

I just hope it doesn't make armies that rely on numbers like Guard collateral damage but I fully expect it to just punish thematic armies,

Honestly as someone who prefers to run thematic armies, I'm okay if it means that my force is less points efficient, so long as I still have the option. GW has been way too willing to strip out options in their never ending crusade for "balance" so I'm very much in favour of them finding other ways of achieving balance that doesn't involve them either removing options or rendering them irrelevant. 

[Vassakov]

I think there's an awful lot of unfounded assumptions going on here. Shall we just go back to what was actually said:

 

 

I've highlighted it for emphasis. Some people seem to be assuming this will apply to basically everything, others that it's going to be punishing for smaller ranges simply by virtue of them having smaller ranges.

 

My suspicion is that it will - at least for now - be quite limited and targeted, based on the language used. Now I know the usual caveats around WarComm apply, but this is an interview with Richard Siegler who I strongly suspect has seen the new MFM and probably had some input into the new edition based on how GW run their "playtesting." 

 

Defilers are probably being highlighted because of the prevalence of 2-3 Defiler lists across CSM factions and believe me, they are a problem at the moment. I could see Riptides getting hit as well (Triptide is a meme for a reason) and then potentially things like Dorns, maybe Gladiator Lancers - but there aren't that many things that are really problematic when 3 show up. The vast majority of armies I'm struggling to think of things that are really an issue. Maybe Castigators at one point for Sisters, but that's not really a thing anymore.

 

It's another dial for them to tune at least, and discouraging spamming very strong units can surely only be a good thing. 

[Bouargh]

2 hours ago, Vassakov said:

 

My suspicion is that it will - at least for now - be quite limited and targeted, based on the language used. Now I know the usual caveats around WarComm apply, but this is an interview with Richard Siegler who I strongly suspect has seen the new MFM and probably had some input into the new edition based on how GW run their "playtesting." 

 

 

I would tend to agree; I hardly see battleline units being affected by this point tax for example. Yet I may also see a risk of unbalance for some armies such as Knights (Imperial and in a lesser measure Chaos); getting a tax on these titanic walkers can be problematic in some cases. Eventually being counetred by the multiplicity of DS anyway.

 

2 hours ago, Vassakov said:

 

[...] I could see Riptides getting hit as well (Triptide is a meme for a reason) [...]

 

 

But it might become a bigger source of unbalance for armies that can field knight like models without being specifically designed to be knight only: Aeldarii and Orks come to my mind. But I guess it works for T'au too.

[Dr. Clock]

I'm also just gonna stick an elbow in here and suggest that this could be a lever to bring costs DOWN on the odd thing where prices were jacked to prevent spamming but ended up making people basically drop them entirely. My buddy's Exorcist has been relegated to third string for a while now, but if it were 20 points less it would see the table most games.

 

6 hours ago, Frogian said:

Which is to say redundancy should come at the cost of flexibility rather than more points ideally - and people taking 3 of a unit to have redundancy for their gameplan shouldn't be something that is looked on as bad. 

 

The issue arises where the units themselves are so flexible that the redundancy feeds off itself. This is not happening to most units, nor even likely to most 'good' units. It's happening to things where the benefit of redundancy is so obvious that the army list is considered 'solved' with three of them at the current price. I don't think most people think redundancy is bad or should be punished as such. It's more that the line between positive and negative redundancy is a matter of taste, and the value of redundancy should sometimes be included in the price of a thing. We already have some soft stepping where min-size units are more or less points than max-size, to reflect some of the scaling built into the rules.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

 

[Galron]

I can also see it as a form to force a little more of the fluff into the game. How many times have we seen the BA gold guys in three squads? If I remember my lore right, three squads is more than the BA even have in their entire chapter. But its mostly to hold back stupidly powerful units. Im ok with that overall but I am interested to see what all units are affected. I dont think I field anything that would be considered broken when taken in numbers. Watch them put Wraith Knights on that list. That would be chuckle worthy

[Indy Techwisp]

So, with all these Detachment Points now known, does anyone else feel GW kinda already screwed the Detachment mechanics?

 

This is the "big thing" for the new edition and if your Detachment was even remotely OK in 10th it's now 3DP and can't interact with the mechanic.

I'd be surprised if any 1dp detachments actually appear in early tourneys since none of the actually decent detachments can use them.

[DemonGSides]

33 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

So, with all these Detachment Points now known, does anyone else feel GW kinda already screwed the Detachment mechanics?

 

This is the "big thing" for the new edition and if your Detachment was even remotely OK in 10th it's now 3DP and can't interact with the mechanic.

I'd be surprised if any 1dp detachments actually appear in early tourneys since none of the actually decent detachments can use them.

 

I'm not really sure what other outcome was expected. Pretty obvious that they were going to make the best detachments cost the most; what other reason is there to even introduce the concept of detachments costing something to bring than to use it as a balance for how much stuff you get to bring.

 

That there's a section of people who are surprised about this is the most surprising thing so far. I don't think there's a single detachment cost that I'm truly perplexed by; some 2's could probably be 1's but I think everything that's a 3 is exactly as I expected just based on a cursory knowledge of the competitive environment. 

 

Edit: I have now seen some of the Imperial detachments and there are definitely a few head scratchers in there. 

Edited June 11 by DemonGSides