40K BREAKING: Points & Power Level Explained

Games Workshop unveils how the Power Level & Points will work in Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition!

Yesterday we got a good look at the unit Datasheets and a bit of a tease on the new Power Levels for units. Well today GW whips out the points to show us how those all work together.

via Warhammer Community

Datasheets include something called a Power Level. This is a rough approximation of a unit’s relative effectiveness on the battlefield. These can be used to very quickly throw together two roughly equal forces to fight a battle. Or, in the case of some narrative and open play scenarios, will determine who takes what role in the game. For example, if you’re playing the “Ambush” mission, the side with the highest total Power Level for their army will always play the role of the attacker, where the smaller enemy force will need to escape the trap.”

“Power Levels are a great way to very quickly get a roughly balanced game organised and started, but they do not account for the various wargear options and upgrades a unit can have. For this level of granularity, you have points. These will be just as detailed as they are now, right down to points for individual weapon upgrades on every squad member.”

Read the Full Article HERE

In terms of points, they will be used specifically for Matched Play. In the example they used, they showed off a typical Space Marine Tactical Squad. Their Power Level starts a 5 but in terms of points, the breakdown is as follows:

  • Tactical Marine: 13 Points
  • Grav-Pistol for the Sergeant: 7 Points
  • Multi-Meltas: 27 Points

Obviously, there will be more upgrades and options, but based on what we’ve seen so far for the weapons it looks like GW really has gone in an re-balanced all the points based on the upgrades too. They are also expecting games to go a bit quicker and are suggesting a couple (2) hours for a 2000 point game.

On top of that, there was another, slightly more important change:

“In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this.

You will no longer be able to indefinitely replicate Daemon units, and instead, summoning will be used more as an alternative mechanism of deployment, much like deep striking or outflanking is today (both of which exist in their own forms in the new Warhammer 40,000 too).”

They do mention that you will not need to specify what those points will be spent on – just that you have to set them aside for the game. That means, if are playing a 2000 point game and you want to set aside 250 points for summoning, you get to dictate what those 250 points will be spent on during the game.

This may seem like a handicap, but the fact that you can choose what you want is a pretty big deal! You’ll be able to switch between summoning a couple of Objective scorers for one scenario and maybe a big unit of heavy hitting daemons the next. Maybe even a Greater Daemon to shore-up some defense – points permitting of course. For Matched Play/Tournament Players, that versatility could come in pretty handy!

Games Workshop did confirm that the point will not be on the Datasheet but will appear else where in the book. They laid out their reasoning pretty well:

“This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet. It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.”

That’s pretty good reasoning in my opinion. That also means this will be a Living Ruleset that will change and adjust over time. No more outdated units and codexes for years – GW will be taking an active role in addressing balance issues as they crop-up.

 

What do you think of these changes? Are you Pro Living Ruleset or against not having points with the Datasheets? Let us know in the comments below!

  • Farseerer

    Not having the points cost on the data sheets is a great move. It acknowledges that balance will take time and effort and that changes will be easy to make while not make the new codices obsolete.

    Taking feedback and constantly adjusting the points values will mean that the meta will remain very fluid, stopping certain builds and factions dominating/under-performing for entire editions.

    This will probably discourage people from building the gimmick lists that are only around for a short amount of time until they get nerfed. To me this is implying that they are putting the integrity of the game ahead of short term sales boosts.

    What a time to be alive!

    • Blinghop

      At first, I had shudders thinking of the dark list making times of 4th ed where you had the rules in the front have and the entries with the points in the back half.

      However, after thinking about it, if they are in list formats like the General’s Handbook, it actually makes it easier to make lists by hand as you just have the sequential pages with the point values. Of course, that will need me to remember what everything does when I’m actually making the lists lol

      • Farseerer

        Personally, not having the points on the same page isn’t going to be a huge deal for me because I always use Battlescribe.

        It’s definitely going to be a bit of a pain for the pencil, paper and calculator list writers though

        • AircoolUK

          It can’t be any worse now, especially when building a combined force.

          No doubt there’ll be an army builder app at some point. I really need to get a proper android tablet to replace my venerable Kindle Fire.

          • I feel you brother, my kindle fire has served me well, though access to better apps for it would keep me around, least I can keep all my old dataslates in one place :p

          • William Jameson

            You could always install the Google Play store on it for more apps. It’s a little silly to get set up initially since there’s four specific things you need to install in a very specific order but I find the payoff is worth it.

    • grim

      My only beef with this is what has been going on with the newer battle tomes for AOS. They keep adding new abilities and faction specific bonuses that really throw things off. I wish the battle tomes were a modular format with awesome art and warscrolls and like you said the Generals hand book does the rest. But it hasnt gone down that way.

      • Those battletomes have been fantastic, if anything they should offer more customization for your army than they do

    • SilentPony

      Pretty sure all it means is that balancing their own game system was too much work, and they’d rather the customers buy a bunch of new models and just spam endlessly for the first year until some semblance of balance is finally made after all the con tournaments complain.

      It’s just DLC content. Just laziness that you get to pay a premium for.

      • Yet players have been constantly complaining that the game unbalances with each new codex and the only way it gets fixed is with new editions. So they address that issue by getting feedback from players and you call that lazy. You can’t have it both ways bud. There will never be a perfect system for miniature game as every company wants to make the newest, latest and greatest minis valuable so people spend cash on it. This ‘lazy’ solution addresses that with annual updates so that your entire collection stays valid.

        • SilentPony

          ‘Annual updates’
          …have you ever met GW? The 7th ed FAQ came two years in, only a handful of months before 8th!
          And saying “well duh, of course they want you to spend more money, that’s just smart!’ isn’t a great argument for a new edition, ’cause it implies they want to make money first, models second, and a fun game system a distant third.

          • Wampasaurus

            Games Workshop is a publicly traded company on the stock exchange not a non-profit. If their policy wasn’t to make money first the governing board would summarily be sacked by the shareholders in short order TBH.
            Do they seem to be making a move toward bettwer public relations? Optimistically, yes? But the jury is still out on that yet…

          • Marco Marantz

            True but the game is dying. Their business model has been to gouge existing players. Its not designed or attractive to new players. Thats a death spiral right there that their shareholders will want something done about.

          • Emperor’s Champion

            which is why they put so much strain on staff to sell starter sets and up sale kids with their parents.

          • SilentPony

            I wouldn’t trust Games Workshop to put their customers first any more than I would trust them to make a reasonably priced product.

          • Uuummmmm…… it’s a business and a publicly traded company at that. Making money is their primary goal. Granted, most of GWs staff are passionate about their own hobby, but at the end of th e day, your fooling yourself if you think the way they do things isn’t about cash

      • Munn

        I take it you’ve never played a game before of anything ever than? It’s not DLC, it’s a patch. It’s completely impossible to balance a game against the literally millions of man hours put into breaking it except after the fact, then you trim down the outliers on both sides and see what emerges from there.

        • SilentPony

          And all it’ll cost you is a subscription, a season pass, and the vague sideways promise of maybe someday they’ll do an FAQ, kinda, maybe sorta, hey how much money you got left ’cause FAQs ain’t cheap, oh and 9th Ed will start the quarter after the FAQ.

          • Finn

            Except it’s not a FAQ. The generals handbook is a yearly release, and I believe that is where the points are held. Their new release schedule has a product designed to balance the game, at a set date. We don’t have to wait them to go “oh okay faq time I guess”.

          • SilentPony

            Do you really trust GW though? They’re the poster-child for ‘f-u, got mine!’ and ‘hey, lets make that $10 more. Those sheep will buy it’

      • Grimbuddha

        I’m contacting you on behalf of gmaes workshop. You are the only one who truly understands us. Cuz you’re so smart. This is a total Last Starfighter scenario. Join us in the grimdark. Do you accept?

        • SilentPony

          Mmm…can you imagine a world where GW actually cares enough to respond to feedback?!

          Oh man. Good stuff! A for effort!

          • Finn

            I trust that they understand the reason why their shares have more than doubled in value since this time last year.
            Their new strategy “community engagement” has paid off big time, and I think they will milk that.
            I trust that their new CEO knows what he’s doing (more than the last anyway) since reinstating the special games team(think blood bowl, necromunda) bringing back GSC, beginning plot development again and rebooting the bloated 40k rules.

          • Zachary Alvarado

            Agreed, Finn.

            I mean, have you even been paying attention to GW the past year or so, SilentPony? You sound like an out of touch, bitter ex. GW ain’t perfect, but they sure as hell are exponentially more trustworthy, likeable, whatever, than they were as recent as just a couple years ago.

          • Grimbuddha

            Well, we’ve seen at least three articles on the wh community website written by a non-employee playtester, soooo… welcome to your wildest imagination? You have my permission to finally start enjoying yourself. You’re welcome 😀

    • Manuel Bateman

      if people were reasonable yes.. but in fact people will still buy and play 27 skyfire (one of the best AoS units right now) before their points will go up in the next generals handbook.

      actually if one wants to focus on complaining and conspiracy theories one could say its even easier to get a cycle of: unit X is best (everybody runs and buys unit X) ok now a year later X is overpriced but Y is really costefficient (everybody runs and buys a couple of Ys) and so on..

      but! i dont have the feeling thats what they are doing in AoS at all! they are making an genuine effort to make a balanced game with distinct and fun to play armies with unique mechanics.

  • gordonshumway

    Yay! They didn’t completely lose their minds. A sigh of relief. Though the separate table thing is super annoying. I truly hope they have an AoS-like app on offer to make this less of a headache (and much easier for them to update/tweak).

    • orionburn

      They have stated they are working on a 40k app similar to the AoS one. At the time it didn’t sound like they were so sure it would be ready for the launch of 8th, but at least we know it’s coming.

      Poor Battlescribe guys are gonna be super busy soon!

      • And me too… 🙁 Having my own app is sometimes a pain… But on the other hand it’s free and I add the features I need, may it be mathhammer, easier rules/stats- preview, power/wounds/damage trackers, formation-sheets or whatever.

    • Suave

      Shouldn’t be too painful. Even without the app I’m sure there will be plenty of army builder sites using the new point system. Having an app will be a lot more useful though.

    • Walter Vining

      they even said on the live Q&A that the granular points would still remain. so idk why this is a surprise to you

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      The separate table is actually really nice.

      They said they are building an app but it would not be ready on day 1.

  • orionburn

    I LOVE the flexibility in reserves. That is going to be freaking awesome. No more worries about your opponent knowing what’s lurking in reserves.

    • EnTyme

      It sounds like that only applies to summoning, not everything in reserves.

      • Yeah, setting aside 500 points of pick your own unit of marines / nids etc to bring in would be crazy.

      • orionburn

        Ah, you’re probably right. That kind of helps make up for losing free summoning. At least you can decide on the fly what you want to bring in.

        • EnTyme

          You basically already could with 7th ed. summoning rules, though. I never used summoning, but I thought most summoning powers allowed you to choose different units based on the number of successes you had. I know that’s how the Genestealer Cult summoning power worked anyway.

          • orionburn

            Part of my confusion was thinking of Seraphon in AoS. Since the Slann can summon different units I was thinking that’s basically how they handled reserves, which isn’t the case.

          • Ravingbantha

            Yes an no, for daemons there are about 4 different powers for summoning. Typically they are a Single cost power and if successful you can choose a ‘force slot’ type daemon, ‘Summoning’ lets you bring in ‘troop’ daemons, so bloodletters, horrors, plaugebearers, or daemonetts. ‘Sacrifice’ gets you a Herald of your choice with 30pts of wargear, but costs a wound from something in your army. ‘Incursion’ essentially gets you a Fast Attack unit. ‘Possession’ replaces a character with a Greater Daemon, and ‘Boon of Flame’ gets you either an exalted flamer, or if you opt for the higher warp charge cost, a flamer chariot or a unit of flamers.

          • Munn

            Yeah, but it was free before. And that is Bad.

        • Chiwawa

          I agree.
          Removing free units will help balance.
          The fact that there will be people that will bring 3/4 summoners and nothing else to tailor their army on the exact units they are facing at the moment will be interesting.
          I like the challenge, but those people will be called bad names 😛

    • Farseerer

      I think it’s just for summoning but it would be interesting if they expanded it in certain missions or for certain factions

    • AircoolUK

      Heh, this will involve a lot of planning I think. You’ll want to be able to take maximum advantage of your points available, so creating a large selection of units to summon that have very similar points values is going to be a thing.

      Do you put 500 points aside and make five or six 250 point units to choose from? Or five or six 100 point units?

      There’ll be a lot of hard thinking going into getting the most out of those points. You’re not going to want to summon a unit that leaves, for example, 90 points of your reserve, with no option to have a unit that cost 90 points or less.

      • Nyyppä

        You forgot to add the summon roll of 10 to your planning. That’s what it takes to get something worthwhile summoned.

        • Robby Peterson

          Did they disclose the summoning rules/spells at some point?

          I suspect pretty strongly that they are going to be drastically different if you are paying points for them. Probably more similar to the old 3rd edition summoning rules than the current ones and likely won’t require any sort of spell cast roll.

          • Nyyppä

            Read the AoS rules. They are exactly the same as the description of today’s “teaser”.

          • Robby Peterson

            That’s really strange. I can’t seem to see anywhere in today’s teaser that refers to casting rolls for summoning, requiring spellcasts for summoning or anything of the sort.

          • Nyyppä

            Connecting the dots really seems hard to some people. That is true.

          • Robby Peterson

            Connecting the dots =/= making assumptions. There is no reason to assume that they will be handled the same way.

          • Nyyppä

            True, because it’s not like the rules are copied almost entirely from AoS or anything like that. Wait…..

          • Robby Peterson

            Weird. I don’t see any rules listed in this teaser. I also see references to Deep Strike and Outflank. I don’t recall seeing those rules in Age of Sigmar.

            Of course this is a teaser. So we can’t actually see the entire rules to tell if they are copied almost entirely from Age of Sigmar. Because we have seen only one tiny portion of the rules.

            Of course, if the main rules of 40k were copied almost entirely from Age of Sigmar that would be a good indication as well. However, that is directly 100% the opposite. The core rules we have seen are substantially different from Age of Sigmar.

          • Karru

            No they aren’t. They are very much the same. Seriously, take another look at them and compare them to AoS rules. You will see very little difference between the two.

            Also, we have seen how “Deep Strike” works in AoS. Look at how the Hammerstrike Force Battalion works and you’ll get a nice idea how it will work in 8th.

          • Nyyppä

            Nothing suggests that you are right. Logic points actually to an opposite direction.

            Just saying.

          • Xodis

            Logic may point that way, but actual research does not. Research shows that almost everyone on AoS’s official FB page wants the Summoning rules changed to be easier to get to the table, not guaranteed, but easier.

          • Nyyppä

            Oh, we have research on the subject now. Please do present that for us all to see.

            GW is not big on what fans want if it does not sell models. Summoning being easier does not sell models. Strong rules for those models sell those models. The models can be fielded without summoning and thus from the company’s point of view there is no reason to change summoning.

          • Xodis

            Its simple, go to Facebook like I mentioned and look for the post where they actually ask the fanbase what they want included in GHB2, then scroll through the tons and tons of complaints about Summoning. Let me know when you get through.
            Summoning DOES sell models, being able to field more models, especially ones that seem only useful in certain situations seems like a pretty obvious way to sell models.

          • Nyyppä

            And they made a legally binding promise there to make the summoning viable lest they face some sort of consequence that most likely kills the company? Because if they didn’t then all that is just chaff.

            How does a game mechanic that does not allow you to bring stuff in addition to the army list sell models? AoS does not let you do that in any game mode worth the time. The next edition of 40k doesn’t either. The current summoning system does. One of the 3 presents an incentive to buy extra.

          • Xodis

            No, but asking and getting feedback is literally the first step. You can be pessimistic about it all you want, dont expect others not to call you out on it though. At this point you are arguing the same points while obviously ignoring very simple concepts on how Summoning can be useful.

            The one system you mentioned also sacrifices balance, which the majority of gamers claim they want. So ruining a game isn’t going to sell models either. Allowing models that fit in specific roles and allowing players to summon those models as they need them DOES sell models.

          • Nyyppä

            No? So, there’s nothing pointing to that direction….even remotely.

            What you call pessimism is in fact realism. We have enough historical proof from GW to not go hoping anything too great from them. You are obviously welcome to call me out on my realism.

            I’m not denying the usefulness of the concept. I’m pointing out that for that to be useful it has to be consistent too. And not consistent in the way it seems to be, which is consistently not working.

            I agree that free units is bad for the game. What I don’t get is why some people think that one side consistently having no access to most of the points available to the other is somehow a better thing. What does it matter if the balance is not there because one player gets free things or because one player can’t access most of his/her army because of almost always failing summon mechanics?

            If the player almost never succeeds on summoning things and he/she knows this because he/she can do basic probability calculations…why would that person buy more stuff….especially when it’s not in addition to the army the player could just deploy normally anyway?

            The system basically first puts the summoning player on a very disadvantaged position by giving him/her a lot less to work with in points than what the opposing player has on the table and then the mechanic allows the summoning side to get maybe one summon done per game….meaning that most of the points left in reserves are wasted. As an example with the current points, let’s say that there is a game of 1500p. The opponent deploys 1500p and the summoning side deploys 500. For the rest of the game the summoner tries to get stuff on the table and on turn 6 a thirster appears….which means that depending on the thirster 3/4 or 2/3 of the points left there just to get that done are lost.

            Maybe it’s just me but that does not seem like a selling point or if it actually is one it’s a pretty damn poor practical application of one.

          • Xodis

            Again, there are things pointing to it, its just not “Iron Clad” enough to make pessimists comfortable.
            Actually, historically, GW has changed and its easy to see. In the past 2 years they have made AMAZING strides in being a better company for its players. Sure they have years before that of messing up, but its obvious the new leadership has changed things dramatically.
            And I agreed that the consistency needed to get fixed, and even pointed to where GW asked, and fans answered…. a lot. Character “sniping” was also a major concern and we can see already that it was fixed for 40K, hence proof of listening.
            The idea of fixing Summoning is what will make people purchase more for Summoning as I mentioned.
            If the Summoning player chooses to leave 2/3 of his army dependent on a Summoner or 2…that player needs to “git good”. Its just a bad idea and possibly the most extreme scenario. In a more realistic scenario the player leaving 200-300 points for Summoning, doesn’t infer THAT much of a handicap and has plenty of room to bring in units that would be beneficial. As I have said a lack of units has made Summoning weaker than it should be already, but thats just a time thing and will get better as more is released.

          • Nyyppä

            It’s not solid enough to convince a person who does not make his/her decisions based on wishful thinking.

            If you look at the models only then sure, GW has made progress. Otherwise there’s nothing there to make the overall “grade” anything worth mentioning.
            During the past 2 years GW has ruined a whole edition of 40k and managed to make one arguably nice codex (GSC). They have also made an unplayable version of WHF, which they then continued to semi fix with GHB only to immediately ruin with new broken material and an FAQ that made pretty much no sense at all.

            The one thing they did well was clearing that pesky 40k grenade rule that most people somehow did not get right even though it was pretty much the simplest and one of the clearest rules in the whole book. I appreciate the attitude they did that with. Kudos and all that.

            Character sniping is not fixed. Imperials have Vindicares. Not one other faction has anything remotely that good for that job. Instead of fixing it they just made it impossible for other factions. Great job and all.

            The summoning does not work if there are no options to choose from. You CAN leave 5 points there but then again 5p does not make summoning viable either. 200-300 points is pretty much exactly as useful as 5p. You also have to understand that those summoners are not free so dedicating them to try and get even those 300p summoned is just another 400ish points wasted. So, in a 1500p game that’s already 700p that does literally nothing except by rare accident.

          • Xodis

            Complain about AoS all you want, its still much more successful then you will ever admit to. Time and time again you ignore everything contrary to your opinion and focus on your own bias. Also, 40K has been ruined for YEARS, it didn’t just happen and the new edition is a breath of life that it desperately needed.

            200-300 points is nothing like 5 points, a unit can be summoned using 200-300 points. Seriously at this point your going to illogical extremes to try and make a point, yes Imperium armies have Vindicares but you have no clue what could be coming down the pipe. So you honestly think all the testing done by the community, no one went “hey, where are my snipers?” or “Summoning doesnt work currently”. This isn’t 40K7e+, this is 40K AoS edition, so expecting everything to play like it did in 7 is silly.

            The bottom line is you dont trust GW to make a good game, you dont trust GW to fix something that the community wants fixed, so why even bother discussing it. You complain about where the game was and you complain about where the game is headed. If you just want to complain by all means, carry on. Leave me out of it though.

          • Nyyppä

            Success is not quality. It’s ok with GHB, otherwise it’s not.
            Thus far I have not ignored anything you have pointed out. The new edition might be good. It’s just that there are critical mistakes in it based on what we know.

            200-300 points is equally useless compared tp 5p. Neither does anything on the table. Actually 5p is better, leaves more points for things that actually appear on the table.

            Nothing suggests that Vindicares are available to everyone as…well…BB equivalents. Nothing suggests that there will be other things like that to fill the role as point efficiently either.

            I’m not expecting things to go like in 7th. I’m expecting that they go like in AoS because everything points that way.

            I do not expect that things change for the better just based on your wishful thinking. GW has made good games. Just not good wargames. Most of the revealed info is fine. I have a problem with the 2 bits that make it impossible for me to play fluffy lists. Melee nids are out because of movement and fluffy WB is out because of summoning.

          • Xodis

            Success is the only thing that CAN measure abstract items like games, its great with GHB and will be better with GHB2.
            What critical mistakes? Im honestly curious as to what is a critical mistake to you knowing nothing about how the game actually works.
            Again thats entirely incorrect. A unit can be Summoned with 200-300 points that could possibly be pivotal to success. 5 points is just wasted without the hope of redemption. Again with the extreme example that is clearly incorrect.
            Basic game design points to other armies getting a way to snipe characters. Space Marine Scouts will probably get it with the quintessential Sniper Rifle, along with countless other armies that have a form of “sniping” already.
            Except we already see that its AoS.2, with the upgrades people were asking to be in GHB2.
            Then dont base on my wishful thinking, actually DO SOME RESEARCH and see the differences between AoS and the released 8e rules, and how similar they are to WHAT THE FANS ASKED FOR!
            Funny how you said melee ‘nids are out when its already been said by the play testers that melee ‘nids are definitely back in and deadlier than ever, and since you dont know the Summoning rules your fear-mongering is nothing more than a knee-jerk Chicken Little reaction. Im sure that YOU can find a problem with whatever rules are released regardless, doesn’t mean there is an actual problem with the rules though.

          • Nyyppä

            You can measure the quality of the game by looking at the tournament statistics too. No matter how awesome everything seems to be, if the winners are the same factions over and over again the game is useless.

            The 2 critical mistakes they have made thus far are the ability to just walk away from combat without any real cost and making summoning next to impossible.

            Yes, the hundreds of points could be pivotal. The lottery also can be won. Those are about as likely events. Those 5 lost points are far less likely to cost the game than 300 lost points.

            Basic game design also aims to make the game balanced. Remember how GW managed to do that before? Me neither.
            So, since imperials are A factions, which other factions have their own snipers? The Eldar have rangers. Who else? Which of these are traditionally as good as the Vindicare?

            I have done the “research”. The differences are clear. 8th edition being balanced for all factions and play styles is just not one of those things. People have asked for that since day 1 and to this date it has never happened.

            First of all there has not yet been anything about nids other than a note about carnifexes in the live Q&A. They said melee is back. They also said that CSM is awesome in 7th, not using those specific words but the sales speech was there. Are CSM awesome now? Well, no. The best thing they can produce is mediocre at best and the rest of what is available to them is a lot worse.

            We know the summoning rules. They spelled them out for us. They are the same rules we can find in AoS.

            I get that you want to make this about me but this has got nothing to do with me before the release date. As this progresses it seems more and more likely that I’m opting out. Most things look great, they honestly do. I love the everything can hurt anything idea because it will create those once in a lifetime things at least I tend to remember from games played years ago. I love the attackers hitting first thing that lets thins like ogryn and terminators actually have a place in the game. I love the new combi weapons. I love the blanket split fire thing. I think the new character interaction with other models has at least a great potential if nothing else. The new weapon rules seem to be good when combined with the split firing. The replacement rules for twin linked guns is simply awesome. All in all most of it is pretty damn good.

            It’s just that 2 things look really bad. Those 2 things make or break my armies and I’m not going to buy another army just to play the game because GW did not make mine viable. One is the summoning made impossible which kills an integral part of any WB build and the other is leaving melee which means that either guns end up sucking, melee units end up being durable as hell OR melee is pretty much a dead concept in 8th edition.

            If I would be playing any army that does not live or die by those 2 things I would be just as hyped as you are. Since that is not the case the thing seems pretty badly done from my perspective.

          • Xodis

            No. Tournament statistics mean nothing as for the quality of a game. Hence 7e which is one of the most broken editions ever had plenty of tournaments. Also, while I agree the same factions are winning because the game was utterly horrible, it could have easily been because the best players preferred that faction, so again Tournaments prove nothing.
            1) You cant just walk out of combat like Dorthy down the yellow brick road, you have to sacrifice ALL actions and HOPE you make it far enough away.
            2) How do you know Summoning is impossible? Literally all that we know is that you must divert points to Summon creatures. Thats it.
            You seem to be confusing “research” with “time travel” or “psycic powers” please enlighten us on what else is broken about 8e.
            TAU would be another, and while none are as good as a Vindicare, there is no reason to believe they will be costed the same either, more bias.
            Like I said, the PLAY TESTERS have hinted that ‘nids are back, so try searching there.
            Again, no you dont. The only thing you know about Summoning is that you have to set points aside for them. Thats it, and if they fix what is needed to roll to actually summon, it will work fine and be a great tool as I have already said.

          • Nyyppä

            And yet they tell us about the balance situation of the game. You know, the thing that either makes it worth playing or not. The game can be balanced and still be useless but it can not be a game of quality with gross balance issues. The best tournament players do prefer the same thing. It’s the best faction or the counter to that faction. To them it’s a competition and faction loyalties have no room in those. We both know it’s about best players with best factions combination and not some miraculous luck that they all liked Eldar when they were the best thing around.

            1) Sacrificing few bolter shots for a turn is not a sacrifice that it should be to make it something to consider and to not just do every single time.
            2) It’s impossible to make it work. It’s too random. Consistency is the key in these games. At the moment it’s just stupid to take that route instead of just taking the most efficient daemons to the list to begin with.

            At which point did I claim that the other units with the same role with the Vindicare would cost the same. Quote me.

            Playtesters are not reliable sources. Almost every time they are fanboys. Fanboys will not bring themselves to honestly speak about the subject of their fandom.

            We know that the summoning includes a roll. That is enough. It’s crap.

          • Xodis

            Again, Tournaments =/= balance. Thats just completely incorrect, and if anything highlights what can be abused, which is where the rules writers need to focus on.

            “Nothing suggests that Vindicares are available to everyone as…well…BB equivalents. Nothing suggests that there will be other things like that to fill the role as point efficiently either.” or we can use this one “So, since imperials are A factions, which other factions have their own snipers? The Eldar have rangers. Who else? Which of these are traditionally as good as the Vindicare?” By expecting them to be as good, you seem to think they must also be costed the same as well, which is again wrong.

            The “fanboys” you are talking about are the same “tournament” crowd you keep praising…so again with the contradictions.

            Not really, because than DS, Outflank, Shooting, literally everything else that requires a roll would be crap….is that would you are saying?

          • Munn

            You are making a reasonable, but not necessarily accurate assumption and then using that as justification for being unpleasant. It’s no wonder most people don’t take you too seriously anymore.

          • Nyyppä

            But somehow this attempt of yours to make this a conversation about me is an argument for something or against something that is actually related to the topic? Maybe my teachers were wrong when they told me that fallacies are not good arguments.

        • Fergie0044

          “Oh no! no more easy summoning” pffff, I’ll not mourn it if it truly isn’t viable anymore

          • Nyyppä

            I don’t think anyone really wants free units. The problem is that these are just wasted points now. Imagine if all deep strikes were like that, needing 10+ from 2D6 with no modifiers. Are you against deep striking in the game? I’m not.

            I get that having options needs to be offset by something but over 83% margin of error is just not reasonable when the units are paid for just like any other units.

          • Fergie0044

            I guess the easy answer is then … don’t do it? We don’t yet know how allies will work but I currently play my chaos army with daemon allies. The daemons simply deep strike in. No summoning required!

          • Nyyppä

            Why would there be a mechanic in the game that can not be used and another that literally has 100% success rate on the very same thing the other pointless mechanic manages to achieve on 1/6 chance? Why would anyone summon anything ever when they can just take the same units with no rolls required? How can these people be that blind even though they have a perfectly valid existing example of the same mechanic that has failed miserably in an environment that is a lot more beneficial to that kind of thing than what 40k gaming tables are? It makes no sense.

          • Zachary Alvarado

            Hey Nyyppa, do you have the winning Lotto numbers for tomorrow?

          • Nyyppä

            Nope, but thanks for the accurately comparable example of chances for summoning to be useful.

          • Fergie0044

            It doesn’t. But then we don’t know the full story yet, so just wait and see.
            And if it turns out to be garbage then don’t use it.

          • Nyyppä

            Try to use that advice with the movement rules and you’ll see how it’s not that simple.

          • Fergie0044

            Eh, summoning is hardly as integral as movement

          • Nyyppä

            We are not talking about Soul Blaze here.

  • EmperorOfMankind

    Not sure why this is news they said this with the first teasers that they released. Remember 3 ways to play? This is what they meant, it was clear when they said it.

    • orionburn

      But at least it’s confirmation that summoning free stuff is a thing of the past. Huzzah!

      • EmperorOfMankind

        Yes, that was very good news. You are right it’s good they cleared that up once and for all.

  • Bryan Ruhe

    Good news all ’round. Nice!

  • No-one Special

    I think those changes to summoning are a very clever way of killing summoning abuses while still providing it with a point of difference, and most importantly, a genuine use.
    The ability to essentially change your list during the game is a massively useful ability, but still limited enough to not be overpowering. Good job GW.

    • Karru

      Not really when you think about it. The problem is the massive risk you are putting yourself in. First of all, you need someone to cast the summoning power most likely. They have succeed in casting it and then they have to hope that the opponent doesn’t block it. All this time you are down in points right out of the gate.

      Also, the problem is that this is most likely aimed at Daemons as they are the only army with Summoning in the first place, or at least the units that will be summoned are going to be Daemons. Daemon units aren’t exactly “versatile” when it comes to battlefield roles. You are far better off with just taking a more solid choice when making your list instead of having to rely on getting them later in the game. It’s basically the same problem that AoS has with summoning currently.

      • EnTyme

        Genestealer Cults also had summoning, so they just got hit with the nerf bat less than a year after release.

        • Karru

          They weren’t exactly summoning weren’t they? They just automatically brought back their dead in another wave. It wasn’t like they could actually bring in more guys as it was just replacing their fallen.

          • EnTyme

            No, one of the Broodmind powers actually summoned new units to the battlefield.

          • Karru

            Oh, I wasn’t aware of that. Not really a GSC player.

        • Munn

          If this was a direct port from seventh you’d be right. But it’s an entirely new game and comparing armies in 8th to their seventh incarnations isn’t really an apples to apples thing anymore.

      • No-one Special

        The negative in that you start the game with less on the table is no different to reserves/deep strike/outflank etc. The benefit is a tactical deployment based on the battlefield layout.
        The having to cast it then balances out the tactical benefit of being able to choose the unit that comes in depending on the circumstance. Whether the choice is from limited options doesn’t diminish the fact it’s still a benefit to have. And I really don’t think they will make it too hard to cast if it’s just a deployment power.

        • Karru

          It will most likely be around 5-7 to cast with two dice and your opponent can try to deny. It is pretty unreliable compared to reserves.

          I remember them saying that the current way how reserves works is massively different from the earlier editions. You now get to bring half of your reserves on the first or the second turn, I don’t remember exactly, and then you bring half of what remains and finally you bring the rest. You no longer roll for reserves, which makes summoning way more unreliable compared to Reserves.

          • No-one Special

            Then they may even make it easier to cast than that, or make it an ability that can be activated. We don’t know the exact way it will work yet, but based on the information we do have, it’s a good change that is far more balanced than before, with a genuine tactical use beyond ‘free stuff’.

          • Karru

            With the information we have, it is more likely to be just as useless as it is in AoS. There is no real reason to use it over just taking the units instead.

            The problem with summoning and points will always be the price. You need to pay the points for both the summoned units you are planning to bring as well as the price of the summoners. You also happen to need multiple summoners in case the enemy decides to use something to snipe them before you get to do anything.

      • Robby Peterson

        You are making a lot of assumptions. Summoning in 3rd edition was just paying points and a different delivery mechanism. There is no guarantee that a spell cast will be required at all.

        Similarly, while Daemons aren’t stupendously versatile, there is still quite a large difference between Flamers, Bloodletters, Plaguebearers, Seekers of Slaanesh or Greater Daemons. Being able to pick after seeing what weaponry your opponent favors, whether they are hordes of infantry or lots of big tough vehicles or monstrous creatures, whether they are fast or slow? That is still a noticeable advantage.

        • I mean, there’s a tiny chance that will be how it works, the reality is we pretty much known how it will work, because psychic powers in 40k are now identical to AOS and summoning in AoS is a spell that works along the same guidelines as what’s listed in the article. Which is to say a tedious high risk low reward option that some people will use but overall is pretty crap

          Except in path to glory

      • I could imagine Dark Eldar Webway assaults to be some kind of ‘summoning’ too. But may it just stays the way it is or turns into a deep strike. Just saying I could imagine it.

    • EnTyme

      This is the same overcorrection that AoS experienced. If you think summoning is still a viable build, go look at tournament results from the last year in AoS. Summoning lists are basically non-existent.

      • Fergie0044

        Will depend on how summoning works. Is it a spell that might fail? Or an ability that automatically happens just like reserves?

      • No-one Special

        Good! Free stuff is not a viable game mechanic. Job done in my opinion.

        • EnTyme

          You’re right. Free summoning was bad design, but so is this. Just like in AoS, summoning went from OP to pointless. I was really hoping GW would look at the last year of AoS tournaments and see this.
          P.S. It’s worth noting that I don’t personally use summoning, but I do like to see multiple playstyles be viable.

          • Brian Griffith

            If it goes back to being just another deployment method and uses icons, which seems to be what they’re implying, I’ve got no hard feelings here.

          • It’s a deployment method where, if you lose your psyker, you lose all your reserves, imho it’s not worth the tiny bit of flexibilty it adds

          • Karru

            My opinion regarding summoning has always been the same. I never had problems with it against Vampire Counts in WHFB because the best they could do was summon “trash” units. The entire army was build around the mechanic and thus priced accordingly. It made for very fun army to play with and against in my opinion.

            If the army that does the summoning would be balanced around the idea that they are to bring in summoned units, then “free” stuff wouldn’t be such a problem. Making it harder to do is also a solution. The big thing is to make sure that the units one summons are always “weak” so even if someone tries to spam it, it isn’t something the opponent cannot deal with.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Unlike AoS you cannot indiscriminately kill Characters who are near units, so there is a lot more protection baked into 40k than AoS.

          • Karru

            But that still doesn’t solve the countless other problems the system has. Unreliability as you still have to successfully cast the power as well as the fact that you have to pay the points in advance which means that taking an “even” number of units in terms of points is hard or just plain pointless.

            The main problem of Summoning really isn’t the fact that summoners can be sniped easily. It is part of the problem but not the biggest.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            You are trading the ability to have models on the table turn 1, for the versatility of brining any tool you need to solve any problem.

            When you build a list, you should already know which units you are most likely to summon and reserve the correct number of points so you can bring them to bare. You would only go outside your normal wheelhouse if you really needed something specific to defeat your current opponent.

            You are basically saying you go into list building and reserving hoping it will work out. That is a recipe for disaster.

          • Karru

            So you think that instead of having all my cards on hand and then use that to beat my opponent, relying on a stack of cards instead would be “more reliable”?

            The difference between list building with reserves and taking summoning is clear. If I don’t go with summoning, I know exactly what I have, when I will have it and what it will do. If I go with Summoning, I have some idea what I am getting, but no confirmation when and how will I bring them. Basically you are choosing between steady and risky.

            It’s like going into a race and you are given two options. Option one is a car you know throughout, but is slightly slower. Second option is to take another car that is much faster than your old one but has a tendency to suddenly engulf in flames.

          • Xodis

            Yes, but what makes Summoning viable and a high risk/high reward tactic is being able to bring a rock against an army of scissors when you only came prepared with paper. Thats pretty powerful, GW just needs to fine tune how it works exactly, but like Red 5 said, having summoners be able to hide in units is a big step forward, now we just need to drop the numbers needed so its a little more dependable.

          • Karru

            If you brought an army that only prepared for paper then you only have yourself to blame. A smart player brings a list that can deal with any threat reasonably well.

            I mean, if you are going to use that as your argument, then what if your opponent decided to bring an army that is focused on killing off characters as quick as possible? Wouldn’t that be just like bringing a Rock against someone who has Paper ready?

            The point of list building is that you make your army able to deal with multiple different threats. That’s why you never focus on one thing. You make sure you have answers to everything in some way. It was exactly that which made the Grav Weaponry and Wraithknight so powerful in 7th. Grav could deal with any threat except those that had low saves. Of course, those low save armies could be dealt with your regular bolters easily. Meanwhile the Wraithknight didn’t have any real counters except Grav, which made it so ridiculous.

            With 8th and the way wounding works, it is even easier now to make an army that can deal with multiple different threats. You no longer need Heavy AT to deal with a threat since you at least have a chance to damage it in some way through regular weapons or even weapons that have high strength but not so good AP.

          • Xodis

            I completely agree that your army should be balanced to handle multiple types of enemies, doesn’t change that some come “under” prepared, and that would be the role that Summoning can fill…at a risk.
            A more realistic example would be having an “all comers list” and meeting the green tide….you probably need to bring in some extra anti horde units to deal with that. Which could play very well into the tournament scene much like MtG and side decks. Sometimes you have a solid list and sometimes you need a little extra to balance the scales or tilt them more in your favor. This is the only role that 40K has never had access to (as far as I know) and it could prove useful.

      • Xodis

        The biggest problem AoS is running into with Summoning is what can actually be summoned. AoS needs more Summonable units, most units with Summoning run into a problem of “why summon a unit and not just field them at the begining?” When the Summon armies have more variety Summon could play better.

        • No-one Special

          Then you feel the same about Deep Striking, outflanking and reserves in general? Most players see the tactical benefits of being able to deploy units later in the game at different locations. The ability to be able to switch what these units are depending on the how the game is going is something that would also be welcomed by most players in 40k. I have no idea how anyone could be complaining about this.

          • Xodis

            No, because those are completely different than Summoning from my experience. The abilities you listed are tactically beneficial because its alternative forms of movement for a squad you were going to field anyways (since you had to purchase it). Summoning is much more limited in “movement” but gives the players access to units they need that they might not have taken though due to its specialization in a given role.

          • No-one Special

            That’s exactly what summoning is going to be now. You pay for the unit and get to deploy it via summoning – except you can alter what it is because you simply allocate points.

          • Xodis

            Oh I know, and I like the changes, my comments were about how Summoning in AoS is not very utilized because there is not enough diversity in Summonable units to take advantage of the ability to call in what you need.

          • EnTyme

            It’s hard to say without seeing how deployment, Deep Strike, etc. work in 8th. In AoS, reserves typically deploy automatically 9″ away from enemy units and can’t move in the movement phase. Summoing is typically the same with the exception that you have to roll to cast, and the spell can be unbound.

          • No-one Special

            Which is a trade off against the ability of being able to choose what’s being summoned depending on how the game is going. It seems balanced to me.

          • Nyyppä

            Well, if that’s how GW thinks about it we might just as well skip the edition because that level of stupidity from them just dooms the whole game. It’s not 3 or 4 you need to make with the roll. It’s 10. Anything less than that is just useless and not worth spending psychics anyway.

          • No-one Special

            But you don’t know do you? You’re railing against something before you’ve even seen the details on how it works. All I’m arguing for is that the principal positives and negatives make sense, and are far more balanced than what we had previously.

          • Nyyppä

            It’s a copy paste from AoS. The system is literally exactly the same as their description of 8th edition.

          • Xodis

            There is no way that it will be as hard as it is in AoS currently, too many people dislike it.

          • Nyyppä

            it’s GW. Dumb game decisions is never in the category of “there’s no way” when they are doing things.

          • Xodis

            I agree, but thats why I have refereed to them as oGW and nGW (a phrase I have seen them use too funnily enough). nGW seems to have a better grasp on the community wants than oGW had on anything. So I’m willing to give them a chance since they did such a good job with AoS, then the GH, then Legions/1Ksons, etc…

          • Nyyppä

            Death says that you are wrong about AoS. Just saying.

            Anyway I am curious but they just killed my CSM with this summoning thing so it’s either nids if they can be played or I’m going to get to travel….a lot.

          • Xodis

            I dont think Death is saying that, I just think Death hasn’t got its time in the light yet. I never said it was perfect, in fact I think 90% of the factions just need MORE, but the game itself is solid and only made better by the GH.

            I’m ok with the summoning nerf, I just hope they dont keep it at needing 9/10 to perform. 6/7 would be appropriate IMO.

          • Nyyppä

            It’s not much of a game without GHB. Ironically GHB also kills Death. Everything is too expensive and the additional rules are directly against Death’s gaming tools.

            If that summoning is to make any sense it has to be very, very easy. Otherwise it’s just wasting points on nothing.

          • Xodis

            Its not really wasting points though, the ability to bring in your “side deck” in the middle of a game is a pretty powerful tool. Once AoS gets 40Ks ability to hide Characters in a unit, it will be even better, and I am 90% sure that is going to happen.
            As far as Deaths points cost, I haven’t seen an issue with them too much, although I’ve just recently started acquiring them and started with the giant heavy hitters like Nagash who needs to be as expensive as he is.

          • Nyyppä

            So, on your mind putting 300ish points aside and having less than 17% chance of success per turn is a sound strategy when a success just means that you get to actually use those points for something….which everyone not summoning already has 100% success rate on.

            Try FEC. Try it against tournament lists.

          • Xodis

            Your distorting the conversation, I’ve already said that there is a big chance that both the number required to summon and the ability to protect Summoners will probably be fixed. Summoners (characters) will get the the ability to hide in units like in 40K, and the number should be dropped.

            That being said, yes, being able to reserve un-allocated points and summon a unit that is specifically tailored (assuming you have one) against your opponent is a powerful feature. Normally tailoring lists is considered cheating, this would be a non-cheesy/cheating way to do so because it presents a high risk/high reward scenario.

          • Nyyppä

            Well, unless it’s 2+ it’s still just a very, very bad DS.

          • Xodis

            Not really, because again, a Deep Striking unit has the guarantee of getting to the table, the Summoned Unit has the guarantee of being exactly what the army needs to win.

          • Karru

            Which still needs to be rolled in order to get to the table and requires someone to cast it. Both of these can be denied by your opponent, unlike Deep Striking and Reserves.

            I can already see Deep Striking “hit squads” becoming a thing in 8th edition with this Character change. Since Characters can no longer hide amongst units and can be targeted freely if within 12″, dropping a small hit squad right next to them is going to very powerful.

            This is especially true against armies that would utilise Summoning. You kill the Summoners and you win. Even if you spent around 300pts to nuke a couple of Summoners, you still get ahead because the price of the Summoners will most likely be around 100pts a pop and the amount of points people need to place in “reserve” in order to summon something that could be considered useful, you basically get 1/3 of your opponent’s army in one go.

          • Xodis

            Deep Striking has always came with its own dangers, so its not a sure thing either. Also, as already been said a DS is better if you want the sure thing with a solid choice, while Summoning is better when you are willing to risk some points to be able to bring out a more favorable unit.

            When did characters quit hiding in units? All it takes is a little positioning to deny that strike squad its chance at assassination without specialty weapons like sniper rifles. Also…making 1/3 of your army dependent on a single character is as wrong as making a full Rock army and not being prepared for Paper like you mentioned earlier. It should be a tool, and not every tool is good for every job or in this case army.

          • Karru

            Characters stopped hiding in units the moment GW released the new info on Characters. Characters are now targetable if they are the closest target OR within 12″ of the unit that is shooting at them.

            I’d very much like to see someone make a ball so large that one cannot bring a small unit of 5 models within 12″ of the character.

            Also, it is not a single character that they rely on. Only an idiot would go with Summoning and then just have one guy do it. That’s what I was saying about the severity of losing the Summoners. You need to take at least two of them, which will cost you points as they are still Psykers and in 40k, many Psykers are also “combat worthy” so they are priced accordingly.

            On top of that, you aren’t exactly going to place something like 100pts or even 200pts in reserves because your options are so extremely limited at that point that you might as well just buy them normally and not take the Summoners.

            All this makes Summoning extremely unreliably and risky. The pay-off is very small in comparison because you are literally risking an instant loss to your opponent if they happen to have a unit that can target your Summoners or has abilities that hinder Psychic Powers.

          • Nyyppä

            The deep striking unit would also be exactly what the army needs to win, assuming again that the person who made the list is not too low on IQ. It’s not that hard. Current marine example would be not putting assault marines in the pod but rather sternguard with gravs in most situations.

          • Xodis

            No it wouldn’t, because that Deep Striking unit could be completely useless against your opponent, like the most common suicide squad of Dropping a Squad with Meltas…..obviously is not going to work on the Green Tide.
            Again, there is no way (without cheating) you can be prepared for everything your opponent might throw at you, anyone that says otherwise is lying or full of themselves, THAT is what is not too hard to understand.

            Even with an “all comers” list you might not have enough counter should your opponent hyper focus on one aspect of the game (High Toughness, horde, etc…)).

          • Nyyppä

            Why would you bring melta squad against the green tide anyway?

            Still, how do you see 1/6 chance of getting something on the table as better than getting everything on the table?

          • Xodis

            You wouldn’t, but how do you know you are facing the green tide or a horde army without cheating? 1/6th? Are you still on about needing a 10+? Thats what the whole discussion is about, GW fixing that.

          • Nyyppä

            Asking is pretty efficient way to get more knowledge. I have this one opponent who plays Imperial Fists and Black Templars. When I played against him I told him at least the faction I was bringing and he did the same.

            I’m still on about the 10+ because nothing suggests that they are going to fix that. It really does not matter what the target number is if it’s not significantly more likely to succeed than fail. 3+ or 4+ are acceptable. Anything above that is just bs.

          • 3+ or 4+ on 2D6? Or is it D6+add something? Both sounds really low though, like a 95% chance to get it succeed on first try.

          • Nyyppä

            Yes. It may fail but the idea is that you are likely to succeed…you know…because balanced games tend to be more fun than the ones that have a predetermined winner. Again, low chance of success is fine if the summoned units are free or almost free. Since you are going to have to pay the full cost anyway it is reasonable that you get to benefit from that cost.

            As a comparison imagine a marine list with pods as transports for everything, you can roll for reserves only for 300 points per turn and the roll needed is 6+ on one die. To me that sounds really dumb idea and yet it is roughly the same chance of success. Good luck making that work.

          • Well, there’s a way between “utter silly low chance” and “utterly silly high chance”.

          • Nyyppä

            And that does not work because the idea can not be that one of the players has a significant chance to not get to use the points the opponent used for what ever without the chance of failing.

          • Why not? You pay for flexibility. Otherwise you could buy them from the beginning. The flexibility to chose what you need in a specific situation and to circumvent the army slots should not be free imo. Also turn-one summoning is better then turn 2 deep strike! Otherwise summoning would be a nobrainer again.

          • Nyyppä

            Because the flexibility is pointless if the chances to use that are around the same with winning the lottery. The rolls required can be seen in AoS. Anything viable is 10+ from 2d6 and you can do that once per turn.

            A succesful turn one summoning is better than turn 2 DS. True. But you have a less than 17% chance to successfully summon a thing worth summoning which makes the DS almost infinitely better option.

            Summoning is a nobrainer. You just do not do it with the rules they have presented to us. It’s an incredibly bad move tactically to go for summoning.

          • I already tood you, there is a middle between utterly low chance and auto success.

          • Nyyppä

            And I already told you that that middle ground does not work for the same reasons the low chance of success does not work.

          • Xodis

            Orks and Tyranids are capable of throwing a full horde or a full ‘zilla army against you. So if a player tells you Orks or Nids…good luck.

            Like I said, there is a LOT that suggests it will get fixed, mostly being that NO ONE likes the summoning rules currently and GW, despite what some think, are making attempts to make a better game.

          • Nyyppä

            Not sure about Orks but if a nid player brings the nidzilla instead of horde you already won the game. No need to play.

            How do you know what gets fixed and what does not? Is there a binding list that they are now forced to fix or is this all in your imagination. One must remember that it’s GW. Their word is worth exactly nothing.

            They are not about to fix summoning unless one sees making it impossible being a fix.

          • Xodis

            Youre basing that assumption on the current state of the game and not a “balanced” version like this is aiming for.
            Again you keep focusing on oGW, whenever they themselves have called themselves NEW GW, again be pessimistic all you want, but the very idea of a living ruleset, updates, multiple modes of gameplay, along with everything else prove time and time again that GW is listening for the most part. It might not be 100%, but something as broken as Summoning (in its current state) will get fixed, its dumb to assume otherwise.

          • Nyyppä

            The current state of the game is actually more relevant info than what they say they are doing. This oGW and nGW thing is just a stunt to make it seem like they are doing what is need. It’s not like they’d ever say that they are going to actively ruin the game like they did in 7th. All we have now is a bunch of sales speeches that are pretty much exactly the same stuff they did before in WDs and such. “It’s going to be awesome! (Insert faction) is going to be great!” Then they mess it up. Just like they did with AoS after they released GHB. This what history teaches us. Nothing so far suggests that the 30 years of repetiton would not continue.

            You still think that a change is an automatic fix….why?

          • Xodis

            No its not, in any way shape or form. Thats like saying the current state of WHFB mattered to AoS when we all know it didn’t. 40K8e is completely redone as we have seen, with only small portions of core game making the change over.
            We also have more than sales pitches, we have leaks, constant leaks, and more importantly we have interaction with the company itself. Also, if you think GW has been the same for 30 years, why are you still here? Ill admit they have sucked since the back end of 5e (I’m blaming Ward personally), but the current GW that has been releasing games, rules, and communicating with the fans doesnt seem like the oGW at all.

            Because its not Rocket Science to see why Summoning is currently broken, and how to make it relevant. Same happened with characters, and if you bothered looking at the FB page I directed you towards you would see Characters joining units to keep from being sniped was a complaint too and ::Gasp:: they changed it with 40K.

          • Nyyppä

            Yes it is. It tells us what level of balance is to be expected. Things can be broken in very many ways. It does not have to be 7th edition fubar.

            8th ed is very much the AoS system just slightly modded to better fit to the theme of 40k.

            We don’t have anything to use as a foundation for a solid idea of what’s to come. We know various details of some of the units. We know 1 slate. We know many of the core rules and these do not let us form any sort of coherent picture of the whole of what 8th edition will be. The fact that they are trying so hard to sell it to us already is not good though. It’s like they do not believe that their product is any good.

            The current GW has killed every single of the last straws any of the factions I played used to actually make games somewhat challenging to the opponent. They did this despite those factions being underdogs to begin with. They did that while they gave more power to the already broken factions. That was the current GW. They did not fire all of their staff, hire new designers and start from scratch with the idea of the game being more important than their money.

            All these publicity stunts would be credible if they led to something good. FAQs were a nice touch but really did nothing. Just the fact that there was a huge uproar because they refused to give helbrutes the additional 2 attacks they gave to all dreadnoughts and only after that they reluctantly yielded is proof enough of their actual intent. Even then they still kept the other CSM walkers firmly on their worthless state.

            We shall see if they really do things well now. It’s all about whether or not they made it possible to win with every faction against every faction without being in any gross disadvantage, how well the different builds fare and if it is possible to play fluffy lists without basically giving the win to the opponent. If that is achieved then I’ll admit that what you hope is the case actually is the case. Before that the history is the only rational basis for any opinions related to the situation.

          • Xodis

            No it doesn’t, and like you just admitted if 8e is AoS modded, than comparing it to 7e is just asinine. Why compare it to 7e, when you can compare it to the system you literally just compared it to? And again, if we dont have any idea of what to compare it to…why did you literally just state that its AoS modded to a 40K theme? Youre contradicting yourself at this point.

          • Nyyppä

            Ok, let’s look at AoS. Horrible balance issues. Hell, the GHB alone straight up denies any and all chances for some factions to function on the table. One of those factions is FEC.

            How am I contradicting myself? Be precise and use quotes.

          • Xodis

            Horrible Balance issues: Wrong.
            GHB: Stopped Summoning because it was already broken, but over corrected too far so Summoners are not very reliable (the ability to summon a unit you need is still awesome) its an issue that GW knows about because no one is happy about it.

            Your statement “8th ed is very much the AoS system just slightly modded to better fit to the theme of 40k.” contradicts both “We don’t have anything to use as a foundation for a solid idea of what’s to come.” and “It tells us what level of balance is to be expected.” (referencing 7e).
            You literally said that we have nothing to compare 8e to after saying its just like AoS with tweaks while initially saying that 7e is the best thing to compare it to. These are all contradictions.

          • Nyyppä

            Well, there are factions that can not win. That’s a horrible balance issue. FEC is one. Mostly thanks to GHB.

            GW has always known about the issues in it’s games. It’s a successful company. Obviously it follows it’s customer base. Thus far it has done nothing about those issues though and saying that they will is far away from actually doing that.

            Yes, we have an idea of the basic rules. We have no idea of the factions. We need both to have a solid understanding of the balance situation. Thus we know it’s 40kish AoS and still don’t know nearly enough. It’s not a contradiction. And yes, when it comes to GW, a company that has followed it’s doctrine of selling models at the expense of the quality of it’s games since it started and there’s nothing pointing towards a change in that attitude. Yet again not a contradiction.7th ed truly is the most credible base we have for our speculation. That, and the fact that a 10 year old could have made it better speaks volumes of the company’s SMO.

          • Xodis

            Thats entirely untrue, sure FEC is over priced with the nerf to their “Summoning”, but its not THAT big of an imbalance. People win with FEC all the time, due to all the other bonuses that FEC get that stack.

            Its totally a contradiction, and GW has already stated multiple times that no faction, army, or model is going to be left behind. Deathwing, ‘Nidzilla, Greentide, etc, etc.. will all be available in the game and playable, its the point of picking FOCs. That still doesn’t mean 7e is a credible base of speculation, you even said once again that its “40Kish AoS” which means most speculation should start there and apparently there are only a couple things you have a problem with anyways.
            Honestly, you are not even really comparing 8e to 7e which is the funny part, you just keep comparing how GW was during 7e to now, when we can CLEARLY see the changes in the company, coincidentally when Kirby left, and how they have changed from their old mantra of “we are a model company” to actually trying to make a solid game that their customers want. Since the release of AoS, GW has made great strides in improving customer relations, and in improving the quality of their rules. This isn’t even speculation, this is fact.

          • Nyyppä

            Oh, FEC win all the time? Ok. Which GTs have they won this year? In which GTs have the been on top 5?

            GWs idea of a faction/unit/model being left behind is the Squat treatment. GW is 100% convinced that vespid are viable. The way GW understands “playable” is that there is a unit entry that one or more factions can use, no matter how broken or useless it is.

            What you can clearly see is the change in the company’s public image. As far as we know nothing else has changed. Shiny image does not make good games. There is no proof of anything else being changed for the better.

          • Xodis

            Except for all the changes in the gaming systems and the fact that the GHB was directly influenced by the fans. But if we ignore all of that then yes there is no proof. Also, like I told you before GT’s and tournaments are not the shining example of balance. Regardless of tournaments being a small fraction of players within a niche hobby already, really tournaments show whats can be abused, not whats balanced.

          • Karru

            I’m going to give you a comparison here so you might be able to understand the difference.

            Reserves (which includes Deep Striking and Outflanking) is like ordering food delivered. You know exactly what you are getting and it is reliable.

            Summoning is like giving your money to a hobo and asking them to bring you food because you are too lazy to go yourself. You ask the hobo to call you today’s specials and you make your decision then. You give the hobo the maximum amount of money you know you’d spend on that food. Now the problem is that there is no guarantee that you money ever even gets to that restaurant, nor is there a guarantee that, even if you get your food, you’ll get back all the money you gave the hobo.

            Hope that cleared things up a bit.

          • No-one Special

            What possible basis do you have for any of this nonsense? You don’t have anywhere near enough information to be making these assumptions.
            The positive/negative balance of what they’ve told us works in principal, so until they tell us summoning only works on a double 6, has to be declared two turns in advance, and only works in your own deployment zone, I think you’d best just wait and see if your worst fears are realised.

          • Karru

            All of this is based completely on how it works in AoS. Currently much of 8th edition is straight copy of AoS ruleset so there is quite the chance that Summoning will be copied as well.

          • Robby Peterson

            Have you not been following the 40k previews at all? Much of 8th edition is actually not copied from AoS at all. There are trends that we have seen, but there is also substantial differences as well. Just assuming that it will work the way AoS does is not in any way shape or form reasonable at this point.

          • Karru

            I have been and that is why I said what I said.

            Characters now work like they do in AoS just slightly differently. They now can’t be targeted unless they are the closest unit or within 12″.

            Psychic Powers work just like AoS Magic does. You roll 2D6 and look at the Casting value of the power. Then if your opponent has a Psyker within 24″, they can attempt to deny by rolling 2D6 and trying to get the same or higher than what you rolled.

            Keywords are an obvious.

            Dataslates are now like Warscrolls.

            Tanks now have wounds and damage charts, just like AoS does with Monsters.

            To-hit is now a fixed number.

            Morale is the same. You roll it once after everything is done and works exactly the same. You roll 1D6, add the casualties of that round and then compare it to your Ld. For each point you went over, you lose one model.

            Cover has been said to now be a modifier to save, same as it is in AoS.

            Looks like it’s you who hasn’t been looking at the previews.

            The core of the game rules will be AoS with slight alterations to make it a tad different. Almost like 40k was to WHFB long time ago.

          • KombatWombat

            That’s exactly it though, ‘slight alterations’. Like, for example, the slight alterations to targeting characters that will greatly help their survivability relative to AoS characters. Or perhaps, the slight alteration of making summoning on a 6+ rather than a 10+. Nobody knows, but surely if they ported over summoning from AoS with that one slight alteration it would be a quite a reasonable mechanic.

            As No-one Special points out, both summoning and deep strike/reserves/outflank trade off having units starting on the board for the ability to deploy in a more advantageous situation. This is seen as a worthwhile risk (risk being tabled before they arrive, risk them arriving too late to be useful, risk of not arriving exactly where they’re needed, risk of losing the unit to a mishap, risk of your opponent not having threat saturation problems and pulling apart your army piecemeal as it arrives) vs benefit equation in 7th Ed. Some of those risks might be gone in 8th, but not all of them can be.

            Summoning is just taking the next step along the risk-benefit path. Risks of the summoner dying, risk of the summons being denied, risk of failing the summoning roll. If the latter is mitigated by slight alteration of making the summon roll something like a 6+, you have risks that are not unmanageable. And the benefit of taking those risks is the ability to choose what type of units you’re going to summon, *after you know your opponent’s list, both armies’ deployment and the current state of the match*, which is incredibly powerful.

            It’s not a bad mechanic or bad game design, the logic is sound, but it just hinges on what the summoning roll is. And nobody has any evidence to say what the roll required will be, as GW has shown they are willing to make ‘slight alterations’ to what they’re porting over from AoS.

          • Fergie0044

            But summoning in AoS is crap apparently. Why would they use the same system?

            The last few months seem to show they (GW) are pushing for a better level of customer feedback and response. Or at least give the appearance of response.

          • Karru

            You kinda answered your question there yourself in the end.

            GW has yet to show one sign that they are ACTUALLY listening to customer feedback. They are still releasing Order stuff, even though Death is still in a crappy position and would very much like to have something going for them outside Flesh-eater Courts.

            They might answer to people’s feedback and give the “illusion” that they are listening, but that doesn’t mean they actually have any effect on their decisions.

          • Fergie0044

            Yea I’m trying to temper my excitement with some cynicism.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        The problem with AoS is that you can kill Summoners from afar with impunity.

        In 40k, you will need snipers to be able to attack Independent Characters if they are near a unit. So there is an added layer of protection right there.

        • Xodis

          I fully expect most of the Aos to 8e updates to be integrated into GH2. This being one of the easiest to expect.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Most likely, i agree.

      • Munn

        It’s a hard thing, because for example the 2016 southcoast GT allowed a 25% discount on summoned units and 8 out of the top 10 armies were summoning based. Even 25% was enough power to swing the game completely out of wack.

      • Exactly, it’s not a good mechanic, I’ve tried it several times in AOS and it’s just not good, I just pay for my daemons upfront

  • Xodis

    I hope the Power Level system is balanced enough that we dont need to micro manage point costs on everything. Sure some weapons are more powerful than others, but that also depends on the situation one is in as well.

    • kloosterboer

      I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed.The micro minutiae of points for a handkerchief distracts from playing the game itself.

      I know that for many, the points IS the game. And that’s okay. It’s just not for me.

      I’ll be quiet now, and let someone like Karru, a far better opinion on relative points values, hold court.

      • Karru

        The problem with “no points” is the lack of options and strategies that comes along with it. For example, as Xodis said, many weapons are more powerful than others. There are very few situations where one would take one weapon over the other if they are free.

        For example, let’s say you would have to “choose” between a Heavy Bolter and an Autocannon. Autocannon could be 15pts and the Heavy Bolter is 10pts, now that would be a choice. Heavy Bolter is weaker but offers more shots so you could maybe use it to enhance your shooting prowess. If they were just “pick for free” upgrades, one would never take the Heavy Bolter over the Autocannon. The Autocannon is superior in this case as it has more strength for only one less shot.

        There is also the problem of “fixed” numbers. In AoS, units are bought in bulks. You take 5 or 10 or 15 and so on. You cannot take 6 models and pay for 6 models, you have to pay the full price for the unit. This would cause problems in 40k.

        Many transports in 40k can carry 10 passengers. That would leave characters always out of transports if you don’t want to take a half a unit which is dumb if you are planning to stick a character near them. Then you have transports with uneven number of slots. For example, the Ork Trukk can carry 12 models. For anyone who has played Orks or even against them knows that Orks need every single model they can get. You need those 12 models in that Trukk if you wish to be effective as you will lose a lot of your models before you ever make contact with the enemy.

        This wouldn’t be possible realistically in a game that doesn’t have separate points for models. You either take 10 models or you take something like 15 or even 20 models and pay accordingly. This is not good.

        • Fergie0044

          All true – thankfully this power level stuff is only optional. And if it proves unpopular it may just slowly fade away.
          I would never play any other way than with points.

          • AircoolUK

            A lot of people make up their units solely from the contents of the box they bought. So they’d make a squad of tac marines with say, a flamer and a missile launcher.

            The power level thing is good for those people as they’re unlikely to have access to enough models to min/max and take advantage of fielding a squad of 9 lascannons (an extreme example, but you get the idea).

            GW are particularly stingy when it comes to special/heavy weapons or wargear. I know for a fact that, despite collecting Deldar, I don’t have enough Haywire Blasters to field 5 Scourges with 4 Haywire Blasters.

            The only way to do this would be either buy them individually from box breakers, buy four boxes of Scourges just for the Haywire Blasters, or use proxies.

        • kloosterboer

          For me, the choice between a heavy bolter and autocannon is exactly as you described – one hits harder, the other has a higher rate of fire. Choose your poison. I don’t need points to offset the supposed weakness of either one – they both have value relative to each other.

          But that’s me. Again, I totally understand how people come to rely on a points system to do their thinking for them.

          I’m concerned – as you are, based on your above post – that points are completely arbitrary. Even though GW now has a vehicle through which to make changes according community feedback, how often will the do so? Daily? Weekly? Annually? I fear it will not be often enough to discourage’ non optimal’ builds that we see today.

          Yes, there’s a reason most/ all eldar lists contain Jetbikes, Warpspiders and Wraithknights. It’s because, point for point, there are no better choices in the list.

          How will GW avoid that same trap, this time?

          WHFB had the same problem. They wiped it clean and made a playable system in AOS.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Heavy bolters are only ahead of autocannons if your enemy’s force mainly consists of T3 infantry. Autocannons have a broader target spectrum though and if you’re not sure what your up against, you’d handicap yourself by taking heavy bolters instead of autocannons. That’s a statistical fact and cannot be argued. There are other cases where it’s even more evident (devourer vs deathspitter). Some weapons only exist because they are cheap. Without points those weapons would just be a newbie trap.

          • kloosterboer

            Wait, This is the same forum that debated endlessly about volume of low power small arms vs hard, high T targets?

            Again, some will choose volume, others quality. I like rolling dice.

            If you chose ‘ no heavy weapons at all’, I see that as a handicap. I just don’t see it any one heavy weapon inherently better than another.

            Your thinking may be influenced by ‘ one list’ or ‘tournament’ thinking, which is to say, one list to take on all armies.

            Which is fine, but then isn’t your list created to take on all comers, regardless? Even if Lascannons were free, you wouldn’t want (nothing but) them against a horde army, would you?

            It’s really an irrelevant discussion, because points are part of the game, still.

            And the community will be endlessly debating over a 10 point HB, vs a 15 pt AC, still.

          • Xodis

            Not me lol, Ill stick with Power Points since Im a fluffy player regardless. Although I’ve played CSM since 5e so Im not unaccustomed to being outgunned and outmatched while still pulling out a win.

          • Heinz Fiction

            I just explaind why weapons aren’t necessarily equal just because there is a rare case where the inferior one might actually be better. Also I gave an example where even such a case doesn’t exist and one weapon is clearly meant as an upgrade to the other.

          • kloosterboer

            They aren’t equal. At all. They’re situational. I’d rather have a lascannon when facing a Leman Russ, not a heavy bolter ( though now, at least I have a chance to do more than chip the paint!).

            The point is, every situation isn’t optimal in a ‘ one list setting’. You can mitigate the situation by choosing something that’s not as good as the optimal – a missile launcher or autocannon, for instance.

            If the AC was in fact, the best choice always, why would the Imperium even have HBs and LC’s in their armoury? Maybe your chapter doesn’t have them – they’ve been outlawed by the (dreaded) Master of Statistics!

            My point is, you didn’t need points to tell you that the AC is the best choice, if you don’t know who your next tournament opponent is, and you only get one list to play with.

            From a game design perspective, all weapons should be useful and relevant. Or just leave them out of the game altogether.

        • Xodis

          I disagree completely, with the AoS type of balance with weapons, there is a definite reason to take the HB over the AC, each weapon is supposed to fill a specific role, most weapons that are superior have other restrictions like 1 per 10 models and the like.
          I agree that capacity in vehicles could be an issue, but a simple Character rule allowing them to take no vehicle slots (but limited to 1 character) could easily address that issue and no one would complain really.

        • Robby Peterson

          In regards to the first part, didn’t they say characters don’t join units anymore. Would they still be able to hop into transports? Maybe they have a rule that lets them “hitch a ride” on any transport without taking up space, one character per transport? Maybe they have to buy transports for themselves or have options to buy bodyguard squads that can ride with them? We don’t know yet.

          In regards to the Orks, who is to say that you have to buy units in 5 10 or 15? Sure, Thousand Sons are that way. What if Orks are purchased in units of 12, 20 or 30? It’s a new edition. They don’t have to do things the same way.

          • Karru

            While Characters are no longer able to join units, they will most likely do it like they do it in AoS. Instead of going with the “one unit per transport” they go with Keywords and just room.

            For example, Rhino might have 10 capacity and the ruling is that only models with the Keyword Space Marines can go in. This means that if you take a unit of 9 Marines and one character, they can go in it. You could also place two units of 5 Marines in there.

      • Xodis

        I agree, but if relative power levels are done properly I dont think a unit can “overload” on side gear enough to make too much of a difference.

        • EnTyme

          Hopefully power levels are based off a higher-end build of the unit, like a tac squad with maximum heavy weapons.

          • Xodis

            I hope so as well. the 1Ksons were listed as 8+6 per 5 models, and a Tac squad with 5 models is only 5..so it might be based on the capabilities of the squad without equipmentso it could could messy when discussing Devastator squads and the like.

          • EnTyme

            “I’m bringing two dreadnaughts, PL 150”

            “Okay. I’ll bring ten devastators with multimeltas in and two Rhinos. Also PL 150″

            ” . . . “

          • Xodis

            You are assuming those would be the same cost….in no way should those be the same cost.

          • EnTyme

            It was just an extreme example.

          • Xodis

            I know, and it made me chuckle…but then I thought about it and was like “dear god no!” That would kill 8e before it even started IMO lol

        • Heinz Fiction

          A single unit maybe not but imagine 10 units full of heavy weapons vs the same 10 units with bolters only…

          • Xodis

            You mean like a Devastator squad and Tac squad are priced the same? I can’t see that happening. While a 5 man Tac squad is Power Point 5, a 5 man Dev squad will probably be PP10 minimum.

          • Heinz Fiction

            No, but a tactical squad with flamer and heavy bolter will likely be the same power level as one without (judging from the example they gave). Another example would be an army made of aspect warriors with a fully equipped exarch in every unit vs. one without. Wargear can easily count for 1/3 of the total cost of the unit. If one player chooses to exploit this he’ll be at a huge advantage.

          • Xodis

            Oh thats true, but while the Tac squad with the weapons advantage has an edge, its not going to completely dominate the other tac squad, which is close enough that player skill should be the real defining factor over just weapons.
            Here is a question though, why would the player choose not to take any advances at all? While plausible, its not a very realistic scenario.
            the more likely scenario would be a Tac squad with a flamer/HB against a Tac squad with a Flamer/Lascannon. I dont see the weapon differences causing that much imbalance as the player with the Lascannon and HB both know they have certain advantages.

          • Heinz Fiction

            This is admittedly a worst case scenario that is not all that likely to happen. Still if one player consequently optimizes his units while the other one doesn’t he will have a significant advantage that is not reflected by power levels. Thats why i suggest to use points, if you want to play this game tactically.

          • Xodis

            Again I can see a player optimizing better than another player, but not forgoeing all free weapons upgrades just because. Then again if they do, thats their choice as a bad general.

          • Heinz Fiction

            One player might not have those ‘free’ weapon upgrades on his models because in reality (when playing with points) they aren’t free – for a good reason.

          • Xodis

            Well Im sure GW wont hesitate to sell him more models. Honestly this boils down to player issues and not so much an issue with the game.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Yes, it’s a player issue if players with a competitive mindset use power levels instead of points because it’s “less micromanagement”. This system is not balanced AT ALL. It’s not meant to be.

          • Xodis

            You dont know that in any shape or form, in order to know that you would have to know the relative power levels of all weapons, and all units with access to them.

            Points cost for weapons does not equal automatic balance either just take a look at the last few editions and its easy to see.

            Re-balancing of the weapons and re-balancing of the squads can make Power Point play much more competitive than what 40K has been in a couple decades.

            Using AoS and how well balanced the weapons are for reference, its a pretty safe assumption that this form of play is much more balanced than any 40K game you have played (unless you play HH mirror matching)

          • Heinz Fiction

            The Rubric Marine datasheets tells me enough (we have had the discussion about different unit sizes on the same power level under the post below). So even if all wargear options were equal it would still be massively imbalanced.
            Your argument that points don’t automatically lead to balance is true but meaningless for the discussion about power levels.

          • Xodis

            Im not sure how, the structure of having set power level at a specific model count is very balanced. As in they balanced it around that power level. If someone is bring 6 Troops for the cost of 10…..well thats again a player issue. Should save points and just field 5 for cheaper.

            Its not meaningless at all since you stance is that points is more balanced, when as history shows is not true.

          • Xodis

            But you dont know it will be significant or just slight and easily negated through play. You can play very tactically and competitively depending on how accurate the Power levels are. They should take into account the average power of a squad who takes a myriad of options, not just a bare bone squad that took none.

    • AircoolUK

      For me and other gamers in my area, this is cool. Sometimes you don’t have hours to figure out a list (I can spend a whole week working out a build for STAW, so imagine how much time I spend on warhammer). Whilst it’s great fun building lists, having a ‘rough’ points system is also good.

      Most of us buy a box of models and make up a unit. There are players who buy a ton of models so they can min/max the equipment (buying combi weapons from ebay, or casting your own in resin was a thing) and if they turn up for a ‘power level’ game with all the best upgrades possible for their squad, then they’re going to run out of people to play against fairly quickly.

      I hate to use the term ‘casual’ gamer, but the power level thing really is a good thing for those of us that don’t buy and sell armies based on the current meta.

      • Xodis

        Hopefully power levels are balanced towards that, and like Ive said before, AoS’s approach to weapon balancing makes few things “OMG I must take” and really puts everything in a role. We even see other restrictions on the amazing weapons like the 1Ksons SoulReaper, that is limited by model count.
        4 Multimelta Devestators sound brutal if you are a parking lot type of player, but the Greentide player will only laugh.

    • Heinz Fiction

      Power Levels are for friendly play only, as they can be exploited massively via wargear options. If you want to play remotely competitive, you’ll probably want to use points.

      • Xodis

        Again, if weapons are properly balanced in “roles” it shouldn’t be too much of an issue unless you run into a pure rock army when you brought a Scissors. A Devastator squad full of multimeltas will ruin the IG parking lot players day, but the Greentide player just chuckles as he eats his face.

        • Heinz Fiction

          While it is not impossible to make every option equally strong this is even harder to achieve than balance via points. Also the example GW gave us clearly shows thats not the case. 6 Rubric marines have the same power level as 10. Thats almost 50% difference in power even before wargear.

          • SprinkKnoT

            I think there’s an assumption that people playing with power levels aren’t trying to actively game the system. It’s not foolproof because they assume anyone playing serious enough that they want to min-max power level, will probably just play points instead.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Yes, thats the assumption that the game developers had in mind. However some people around here seem to think they can use them like points only with less calculations to make. This won’t work. Power levels are ok for a training game, a narrative game or if you know your opponents army and mindset really well.

          • Xodis

            Its not about making options equally as strong as the other, but equally as “focused” and strong in their role. Yes a Lascannon is stronger than a HB, but ultimately it depends on what your shooting at. Against High T vehicles/monsters/character the Lascannon has the advantage and against hordes the HB does.

            As to the 1Ksons, there is no such thing as a squad of 6, its either 5, 10, 15, or finally 20 all at different power levels. While not very fluffy (I need 9 in a squad), the power levels being strict like that enforce a level of balance.

          • Heinz Fiction

            I know what you’re saying and i agree. When i’m talking about the strength of options i’m not referring to their S value but to their all around usefulness. Sorry if that was unclear.

          • Xodis

            I gotcha, I think its very possible to keep weapons relatively balanced (I dont believe in perfect balance) through limitations and other options (Required model count as an example), and AoS did a great job IMO of making weapons seem ideal but not OP.
            Sure we can agree that a Dev squad with 4 HBs should cost much less than what a Dev squad with 4 Rocket Launchers might cost but with the new Split fire rules along with everything else I dont expect to see the same type of min/max that we have seen in the last 4 editions. It just wont work well for that person unless they get lucky.

          • Xodis

            Which again goes back to my point that if you field 6 models at the cost of 10…than its a player issue and the player should make the appropriate changes to his list. Its like keeping summoning points available and not bringing a unit that can summon, its just bad play and possibly a lack of understanding of the game.

    • Bryan Ruhe

      It’s amusing to me that no one here seems to be a modeler first, player second. The “modeling first” approach fits nicely with the Power Level mode of play.

      As in “I made these models in a manner I find to be most aesthetically pleasing, and did not bother consulting the weapon profiles or the ‘best loadout.’ However, I still want an excuse to put my pretty models on a table and roll dice.”

      This describes me perfectly.

      I kind of doubt that the “prettiest” model configurations will regularly result in “unbalanced” or unintentionally abusive/skewed/unfriendly loadouts. I hope that makes sense.

      • Xodis

        Makes total sense to me. Im sure that Power Levels will be close enough that no one is in an inherent disadvantage to anyone else…but if 40K players do anything they break a game in the best possible way, I guess lol.

      • kloosterboer

        *raises his hand*

        • SYSTem050

          High five 🙂

          But shush they don’t like us round these ere parts

          • Bryan Ruhe

            High five received.

            Hard to shush, though… I’m working on converting a Tech Priest Dominus – he’s outfitted with a Heavy Rock Drill, and his staff is topped with a Heavy Rock Claw instead of an axe… Used a head from the fantasy Flagellants kit, replaced his left eye with a lens, and will greenstuff a hood… Can’t wait to get him finished! 😉

            And back on topic… I can’t wait to unleash my Carnifex and let it march around the battlefield for the first time. And maybe Genestealers will be worthwhile again. I sure hope they are.

            Also stoked to eventually see the rules for Imperial Knights. Would love to run a PL game with a Knight + infantry VS a monstrous creature or two + infantry.

            I AM EXCITED, CAN YOU TELL? This will be the version of Warhammer 40,000 that gets me to play. 🙂

  • Karru

    Some good things here, but some things that worry me.

    The good things first. Upgrades cost points still. This is huge as it makes people actually think what to take and I like that in a game. Makes it more tactical in my opinion. The inclusion of “Power level” is also nice for those that enjoy some Narrative Gaming but don’t have the time or “skill” to make up a balanced game on their own or just need some basic guidelines.

    The bad thing. Space Marine Tactical Marine is 13pts. That is 1 point cheaper than they are now and that is in no way good. That means they are once again increasing the scale of the game, which is bad for both veteran gamers and new players. Biggest problem is that especially with the heavy favouring they are getting from the rules, the price of many horde armies will go through the roof and into space to balance things out. If a Marine is 13pts and is getting a 2+ save with little hindrance to moving and shooting heavy weapons, then Guard must be around 3-4pts a piece while an Ork boy needs to be around that price as well.

    This isn’t that great in the long run.

    • They did say that the marine squad would come in at around the same price, and the multi-melta is now 27 points a model.How much is it now? 10? So if you want multi-meltas you have to pay more than a marine costs (more than you save on all 10 marines) to get it into your list.

      Till we know the points of all the upgrades its a little early to worry about that 1 point drop, especially if the 1 point drop is only for nekkied marines and any upgrade almost negates it across the whole squad.

      • Karru

        You are correct, but I am still worried. Even without any upgrades, 10 Tactical Marines for 130pts sitting inside a building rocking a 2+ save and camping an objective will be nigh impossible to kill.

        • Blinghop

          I’m thinking the point cost is in relation to everything in the game as a whole. Think of how criminally undercosted some units are now vs how overpriced others were.

          From all accounts, they took a step back to balance across the board, so while the assessment of tac marines brought them down a point, it may very well have brought other things up in cost (like the multimelta and hopefully the wraithknight).

          This global balancing shift may not be perfect at release either, but the plan to regularly adress costs both up and down gives me hope that this is adressing power rather than forcing more models on the table.

          (they will still want more models on the table lol)

        • AircoolUK

          Points will be normalised… it’s part of the whole rebuilding from the ground up process that GW has taken with new 40K.

          Everything has been normalised and re-costed accordingly. You have to remember that we’ve got a new game, not just another iteration of the previous game.

          You’re making the mistake of trying to compare two games. Whilst not as extreme as, say, comparing points costs for Age of Sigmar against Bloobowl, you still are making the mistake of comparing two different games.

          • Karru

            Problem is that I have literally no confidence in GW when it comes to balancing out the game. Their usual solution is to make everything cheaper, which does also include horde armies and their already cheap units. This leads to horde armies being even more expensive to play so people don’t play them. This makes the game turn into Horus Heresy 40k edition where its Marines vs Marines 90% of the time.

          • davepak

            good thing they had playtesters then.

            Remember – Old gw :
            *what internet?
            * what game?

            New gw:
            * Community relations
            * Rules matter
            * Balance matters

          • Karru

            They have yet to show that they actually care about balance, at least enough for it to matter.

            Currently AoS suffers greatly from unbalance in factions. Death is almost non-existent due to lack of releases. Meanwhile Order is going strong for obvious reasons.

            The game is far from balanced and the input they take seems to fall on deaf ears most of the time. It’s a common tactic that businesses use. They give customers the illusion that they have a voice, but really the power is always in the hands of the company.

      • orionburn

        Plus standard bolters won’t have an AP modifier, so they aren’t auto killing a lot of things they wound like they did in the past, such as Nid gaunts. That’s a big shake up.

    • Wolfman UK

      True but other things have gone up in price multi Melta has gone up to 27pts? So it may balance out in the end…

      • Viper666

        a Weapon that will probably have a 2d6 damage output with a damage reroll at half range will be worth that 27 pts 😛

    • Farseerer

      Grav cannons not being the most expensive upgrade anymore is pointing towards a nerfing… I am ok with this

      • BClement

        it’s 7 points for the Grav-Pistol upgrade on the squad sgt. If you’re comparing that to the Multi-Melta points then you’re way off.

        I wouldn’t assume anything about Grav just yet based off comparing a Pistol upgrade to a Heavy Weapon upgrade.

        • Farseerer

          It was more that they said the MM would be the most expensive upgrade when currently the Grav Cannon is @ 35 pts.

          • Mr.Gold

            unless tacticals cant take grav guns/cannons any more – maybe they are restricted to devastators?

          • SprinkKnoT

            Definatrly not since the model exists for it. They arent going to cut options that they sell models for.

          • Farseerer

            good point. hadn’t thought of that

          • EvilCheesypoof

            I doubt that, they said they wouldn’t invalidate any current army lists, meaning they won’t remove model/weapon options from units.

            Obviously lists will change due to min/maxing the new points and rules but you know what they mean.

          • Walter Vining

            they didn’t say that, they just showed that. las cannons will still probably be more expensive

          • AircoolUK

            Depends who the upgrade is for. Sometimes upgrades are cheaper for one unit than another, either in the same codex or a different codex.

    • davepak

      They got cheaper because ATSKNF got nerfed, hard.

    • TenDM

      We’re going to have to wait to see on the points. For all we know Tactical squads could be cheaper in order to encourage players to bring more basic units to balance out the big guns. Elite and Heavy choices could be up a few points.

  • Brandon Sharitt

    The Power Level stuff looks interesting. It might actually make casual open play for pick up games a thing in a way that I haven’t seen for AoS.

  • Leon Lablanc

    Except the point about codexes is invalid, they use this method of points with sigmar, but i have had to buy 2 battletomes already plus the generals handbook, and a new handbook coming out this year. I dont mind, I like books, just lets not try sugar coat it lol

    • Brian Griffith

      Sigmar has had a few course corrections and changes to its army book formats. 40k 8th is being planned with a yearly General’s Handbook (for cheap) from the start.

      So day one you have the faction compendiums which will be cheaper than codexes and cover more, and the General’s Handbook updating those yearly for points balance.

      And yeah, the compendiums will gradually be superseded by more traditional codexes, but overall your book churn rate should be substantially less than prior editions, and cost less overall.

  • JD Robertson

    From a design perspecitve, I don’t understand why common rules, which most players will not need to refer to constantly, need to be written out in full on every data sheet, but point values, which players actually need, are absent from the data sheet. Seems like GW is persisting in the myth that there’s some huge market of players who want to play unstructured games.

    • Brian Griffith

      Because it lets you regularly revise the points values without having to reprint the sheets. You only need those values during army construction, not during play.

    • Scatter 667

      Actually its similar to 6th edition codices. You have the data sheet and fluff and special rule in the middle of the book and in the back you have all the units listed with all the points cost and gear. But you also had the special rules list.
      You actually dont need the point during playing, but only for writing your list. And now they can just update the points table and leave the rest as is. I like it a lot!

    • BClement

      Literally in the article:

      “It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without
      invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to
      dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their
      weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.”

      Having the points on a different page or section means they can update without invalidating the old rules.

      • JD Robertson

        Yes, I read the article. My comment was not that splitting information between the datasheets and an outside reference cannot make sense, but rather that they are not consistent about this. Common special rules are also likely to require errata over the lifetime of the game and duplicating this on each data sheet will force constant reprints. If you want to avoid reprints and expect players to reference a second source, then you should be consistent and keep the contents of the data sheet to just what is unique to the unit. If you want to maximize playability, you should put as much as possible on the data sheet and assume players in 2017 will have an electronic copy anyway.

        Besides, the whole “invalidation” thing reads like an excuse anyway. If you put the points costs in a printed book at all then you invalidate the book by updating point costs. Unless you assume that all players will always have the latest book and know which points list to reference. You’re basically forcing users to use an online reference, so why not make that an online version of the data sheet and keep information centralized?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      It means they can more easily adjust points up or down without having to re-print the whole codex.

      • But the errors in the printed unit sheets themselves then will stay wrong?

  • mac40k

    Can’t wait for the people praising yearly updates now to start complaining when they have to bring multiple books to play next year.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Multiple books? You will need your Codex and the General’s Handbook…

      Next year, Codex and General’s Handbook 2…

    • AircoolUK

      I’ve already enjoyed people complaining about having to buy a new codex when they’ve spent the last five years complaining that they need a new codex.

    • Admiral Raptor

      Maybe those same people should realize it’s 2017 and just get a tablet instead. Physical copies are only okay for collectors or those who play exclusively at home.

      • ‘only okay’… that sounds pretty harsh. But you’re right in so far as that whoever wants a book also needs to be aware of that he needs to carry said book.

  • Nyyppä

    So, no summoning in this edition. Well. No playing WB either. No can do.

    It’s now nids or skipping the edition. My wallet looks hopeful.

    • Bonemaw

      i feel your pain, as I have a massive tzeentch daemons army and I used to summon speedbumps/objective grabbers and then possess my heralds into bloodthirsters if I needed to handle something really tough.

      Now that is all of the past and Tzeentch is just down right lower than Orks 7ED in powerlevel…

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Good. Summoning is a broken concept that needed to die. Totally unfun for the person across from you.

      • Nyyppä

        Compared to what? The whole of eldar, mech, marines of any kind or similar? No, it’s not and it didn’t need to die.

        • SprinkKnoT

          Fighting an army of twice your size isn’t fun; that’s not to say fighting Eldar Scatterbike spam was fun either, and that’s only because their bikes were far cheaper than they should have been. Having an undercosted army and being able to get free stuff are essentially the same, both result in one player being outnumbered and outgunned.

          • Nyyppä

            Does it matter if that army is half as good as yours? My god, the outcome might not be predetermined!

          • SprinkKnoT

            Demons are definitely not “half as good” as most armies. They have been solid mid tier without summoning for a while.

          • Nyyppä

            You are talking about Tzeetch Daemons specifically the other 3 are far from that good. Then there’s CSM that outright suck. Yes, there’s DG that are mid tier but the rest are firmly hugging the ground in the bottom tier. So, out of those 2 things are mediocre and 10 or so just suck.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Well they are re-designing the entire game and trying their best to make all units relevant.

          • Nyyppä

            Well, they are re-designing the system to be AoS like. I have nothing against that. It just seems like the armies I play just get played out of the game by one of the other of these revelations. My melee Nids went with the movement rules and summoning killed my WB. It’s not that I have anything against those rules. I just don’t think that the designers managed to make my idea of fun possible by other means.

          • I haven’t seen a Slaanesh army for years.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Well, GW is fixing the points issue which means free summoning needs to go too.

          • Nyyppä

            And you believe that they both aim to do that and succeed?:D

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            It is now or never.

    • Maitre Lord Ironfist

      well, it depends on your local Meta. At my place i can play with GK and Sororitas allies. But i said that i am a casual 🙂

      Summoning as an Idea is good, but it did not work. Like the one thing that gives you free vehicles. Free stuff is always bad if you are the Only one who gets it. Or way to cheap stuff like scatterbikes.

      I prefer to wait what realy comes. Rubric marines look interessting and unique (also strong) – But if nearly every Army is on that same Level it is ok. Also Multimelta for 27 Points. It was 10p for Soro before :,D Maybe that indicates a change here.

      • Nyyppä

        I agree. The thing is that now it’s just a very bad DS version. You basically forfeit a tonne of points for pretty much zero benefit and most if not all of those points are lost.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Zero benefit being the fact that you could summonable unit you have with you?

          • Nyyppä

            Zero benefit is that you need a 10+ form 2D6 to get anything worth summoning summoned. 16,67% chance of success per turn. The current summoning with just 3 dice is 12,5% chance. There’s not a big difference and yet with the current system you could just throw so many dice at it that it’s an almost certain success. So, not only is the summoning very unlikely to succeed, it also costs a lot of points.

          • SprinkKnoT

            I dunno if you’ve played AoS, but there are tons of modifiers to casting. Summoning with a Lord of Change is pretty much a sure thing.

          • Nyyppä

            I actually have a FEC army. Exactly zero modifiers to summoning there. Nothing suggests that regular CSM sorcerers would get 2D6+8 rolls on that one.

          • SprinkKnoT

            I think most people agree, that they shouldn’t. Summoning in expensive units should be risky for anything that isn’t tzeentch daemons.

          • Nyyppä

            Risky =/= almost impossible. Besides the point is not the difficulty but the fact that you still have to pay for the ordeal even if it’s roughly 1/6 chance per turn to get some of those points on the table. 1/6 chance is fine if it’s free or almost free. 1/6 chance is bull when you pay the list price for the unit.

            I’m all for paying for those units. It’s perfectly ok. It’s not ok though that on average you get exactly nothing for those points.

          • Someone

            Hang on – you only pay the points for the unit if it’s successfully summoned, so if you fail to bring in your chosen option on turn one, you can continue to try later in the game

          • Nyyppä

            True. Now, you have enough points on the side to do that every or every other turn because otherwise the flexibility is not there. You’ll get it done maybe once in a game on average. Do you see the problem?

    • TenDM

      7th Edition summoning sucks, even for the controlling player. It’s so random and unreliable that you have no choice but to try and spam it. Even if they don’t get it right, and there’s no reason to assume they haven’t tested it specifically, it’s better than sticking with a system that alternates between good and bad but will never work properly.

      • Nyyppä

        Since it’s a copy from AoS we can safely assume that the target numbers are the same. The target number for summoning is 10 on 2d6. That’s 4% more likely to succeed than 7th edition summoning on 3 dice. You are right. It is consistent in it’s results with the new system. Sadly it’s consistently failing.
        I don’t know how that is better though, since the current system truly alternated between good and bad and the new system is just bad. The present version at least has a chance to work.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Summoning in 40k will be better than Summoning in AoS, since in AoS you cannot shield or protect your Summoners. They can be killed from a far with impunity. In 40k, you cannot target an independent character that is near a unit. That makes Summoners a lot more survivable.

    • SprinkKnoT

      It’ll definitely be better, but it will be interesting to see if it’s actually useful as a mechanic. It could be that “free stuff” was actually the only thing that made it worth it. As soon as you have to pay for it, there are better things you can be doing.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Free is always worth it because there is 0 cost 🙂

        • Exactly. If its free it has a 100% boost to your efficiency scores on your spreadsheet.

      • JacersErasers

        I’m surprised that summoning players are willing to say that since it’s not free it’s not worth it anymore.

        Not even the mechanicus players are complaining as much for losing their free upgrades army wide.

        • Bonemaw

          you only used the summoning for speedbumps for the enemy or warpcharge battery/objective grabbers.
          If they got in combat, they would loose combat and then die to daemonic instability… So yea they needed summoning to be able to fight another army, since they don’t have shooting either and only S3 T3 I3 A1

        • I’m not surprised at all.

          From a powergaming perspective, free points is a crown jewel. It makes it so they can play you and have say 3000 points to your 2000.

          If its not free anymore, then often its not worth taking because then its not guaranteed to come out, they are paying points for it so their efficiency factors drop, and there is the possibility their summoner gets sniped and they pay points for nothing (which is the fast track to causing rage in someone powergaming their list)

          Ultimately its only worth it when its as powerful as it is when its free. Otherwise from a powergame perspective, there are other more OP broken things you are better off spending points on.

      • TenDM

        Not just better, but more reliable. I mean without the free price tag it’s just a worse version of Deep Strike with the potential to never arrive.

        I say re-work the entire concept. Units can pay for the ability to be summoned. This puts them in Summon Reserve. At the start of each turn a player can choose to roll a certain amount higher than reserve rolls for each unit to essentially Deep Strike them in.
        Alternatively each summoner can summon one of those units as a Psychic ability per turn. When summoned this way they can arrive without scattering anywhere within 24″ of the summoner without scattering, anywhere within 48″ with Drop Pod style scattering, or anywhere on the table with standard 2D6″ scatter.

        That way you never lose them but they’re not just Deep Strike. Of course you could always straight up make them Deep Strike with summoners getting a ‘Homing Beacon’ style upgrade.

  • The removal of abuse able summoning makes me very very happy.

    But lets not kid ourselves. Anything in this game that isn’t fun is because its too cheap for what it does and a min/max spotlight shines on it.

    The AOS points are not anywhere near balanced either. They are *better* than they were in the past but there are still broken things in AOS due to their cheap cost.

    I expect 40k to be the same. There will be some other units too cheap for what they do that the min/maxing will grab on to. Thats the nature of the beast.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Same here.

      Hopefully this also means that free Razorbacks are a thing of the past!

      • I *think* I read where all units may choose a dedicated transport for free now…

        • Valourousheart

          That will be awesome with the new plastic Thunder Hawk

          • I’d hazard a guess that Thunderhawk won’t be classified as a dedicated transport one can take for free lol.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            It would definitely be a super heavy or a flyer

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          So long as everyone gets it!

        • davepak

          this is NOT the case. dedicated transports are their own slots, and taking other units unlocks them.

  • Admiral Raptor

    As a Daemons player I’m totally fine with summoning going away. I just hope that the 90% of the Codex that was garbage becomes usable.

    I really hope these power levels work out well. List building is painfully boring and takes way to long. I was kind of hoping we’d get the AoS system for upgrades but I understand that it would have been a real struggle to implement in 40k.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Yeah AoS style works well with limited options (or options created with that design mentality in mind). It does not work as well for 40k, a game made with granulation in mind.

  • mgdavey

    The whole convenience angle of this system change is just hype. in essence all you really needed in the past was a BRB and a codex. It appears that in the 8th you’ll need a BRB and a not-a-codex-or-something. Of course at first there will only be 1 ‘codex’ per faction, but as time goes on they’ll be additions the require more books to run 1 army. Granted the current state of affairs is unsustainable, but the thing about the new system that helps is that they’re wiping the slate clean, not that they’ve got a better system. It’s the same system.

    • davepak

      and then I needed my forgeworld book, oh and my data slate, oh and my clan book, and….

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        To run Chaos properly you need:

        – Chaos Marine Codex
        – At least one of the three supplement books
        – The Daemon Codex
        – The 2 Fenris Campaign Books
        – A slew of Formations sold by Black Library
        – At least one Forge World book

        • mgdavey

          So they start from scratch. Until they put out new chaos models. Then you’ll need the data sheets for the legacy models, and then the book/sheets for the new models, and Generals Handbook X.

          • Nilok

            Hopefully by that point, they will be releasing the datasheets with the models so that isn’t as much of a problem.

        • And it will always stay this way, because each part of the GW holding will release their own additions. (Rulebook, Codex, Campaign book, Forge World, Black Library, Webshop)

    • Brian Griffith

      Wrong.

      The compendium books will contain the 12 pages of core rules along with all the units for the given faction.

      So for example to play Chaos on day 1 (and that’s all of Chaos. Marines, Daemons, you name it) you’d need… the Chaos book.

      • mgdavey

        On day 1. But what happens when Generals Handbook 2 comes out? Or the a new book dedicated to Khorne comes out? The system is subject to the same problems.

        • Parthis

          It’s the same system as AoS, which doesn’t have the issues you’re trying hard to apply.

          As the poster above said; wrong.

          • mgdavey

            There are currently 3 books for AoS that cover Chaos demons.

          • Parthis

            Non of which are required to play the game.

          • mgdavey

            And that’s the case with chaos currently in 7th Ed 40k. You can play with just the BRB and one codex if you want.

    • TenDM

      It’s not just about how many different items you carry, it’s about the amount of irrelevant pages you have to carry within them Right know I carry the BRB which I don’t really need to reference and about six pages of Eldar rules I wrote and printed out. It beats dragging an expensive Codex with me and I can give a copy to my opponent.
      It also puts pretty much everything I need on one page per unit. Flicking through books for stats or specific wording sucks.

  • Jared van Kell

    I am all for having a living rules set. It has worked superbly for Age of Sigmar so it is proof that it will work for Warhammer 40K.

  • Defenestratus

    Looking forwards to absolutely nobody using “power level” for determining forces in casual play.

    • kloosterboer

      …that would be me. Any takers?

    • TenDM

      I might use them as self imposed restrictions against weaker factions. Even then I’d like to think I’m good enough at eyeballing army strength.

  • Zachary Miller

    So if a tactical marine is now only 13 points, does that mean the scale of the game is going to increase? I sure hope not; tables are already way too overcrowded as 7th is now. I hope they push for tournaments to endorse smaller game sizes. But that’s just me. I never liked playing 3 hour long games with armies that took up half a gaming table. I much prefer smaller, around 1000 – 1500 point games. They force you to think on your toes more than 3000 point slug-fests.

    • SprinkKnoT

      It seems like weapon loadouts are becoming more expensive, to compensate. They mentioned that the scale of the game should remain about the same, and that 2000 point games should only last ~2 hours.

      To me, the 2000 point games are much more fun, the large sized battles of 40K are always what differentiated it from Warmahordes and other games. That and at larger points you often get to see a little more unit variety since people are more willing to take their weaker units if their core is solid.

  • Marco Marantz

    Could it be GW are putting the game first!? Sounds like a total re-write of the game..

    • Nyyppä

      By that definition, yes. Otherwise I don’t think so.

  • Can you summon any unit type and thus circumventing the maximum number of slots of your roaster? Like say I took 3 heavy, but can summon another 3 if I only put enough points aside?

    • Nyyppä

      Pretty surely.