WarSeer Official Discussion of the 'leaked' 6th Ed Rule Set

[Desca]

For instance, before Kill Points were introduced it was to people's advantage to fill as many Force Organization Chart slots as possible, with oddities like lone Vypers that would hide all game until it was time for them to contest objectives and table quarters. That made armies look weird and "gamey" in their attempt to use as many slots as possible. The introduction of Kill Points fixed this problem because it found a way of punishing MSU. The author of this document seems to have forgotten what those 3e and 4e MSU armies looked like because he un-fixed the problem. That's not nostalgia, it's someone messing with what they don't understand.

The problem in 5th is that you punish armies that have no other choise than using more units, like IG, or punish
Space Marines for using their combat squad rule. I think the new system is something between the old and
the new, you are still punished for using more units, but not as hard as before. As an example, 1 Vyper with
scatterlaser costs 60 points, three cost 180 points. By the new kill point system if you have 3x 1 Vyper it is
worth 3x 2/2/1 (depending on the role on the chart) killpoints, so 6/6/3 in total. For the 3 Vyper in one unit
it is 4/4/3, so better in two of three situations in this case. And because of the new "holding ground" you can
not hide your units until the end of the game, because you collect the major amount of point "during" the game.

We also know why this document's system for wound allocation doesn't work very well. We've tried it before and it sucked.

Not the same we had before, and by adding directed hits they actually opened a niche for snipers to be useful
against non-MC units. I like that, even if itīs not plausible (why can a soldier pick up the weapon from another
when he was killed by a Battlecannon, but not when he was killed by a sniper).

[itcamefromthedeep]

Erm, you didn't...make that post, dude.

Here, I'll show you:

Also, and as an unrelated point, I believe the game to be pretty awful compared to 40k 5e for a number of reasons. First, there are ideas in it that document that have existed in previous editions but were removed for good reason (it's as if good lessons learned were forgotten). ...

The old ideas returning it is because this was written by an unoriginal nostalgic fellow without an eye to game design to speak of. Brought back what they liked, Merced what they didn't, and I'm sure if ou look hard enough you will even be able to figure out what armies the fellow plays because the rules will be suspiciously suited to them.

The thing about that specifically, the callbacks to old stuff, is that WFB is chock full of them as well. If you'd told me two or three years ago that WFB8 would have all the old spell names from 4th edition and the return of seriously wacky, ancient stuff like zoats and fimir, I would have thought it was a fanboy hallucination. It's difficult to communicate just how bizarre this is, how much of a u-turn, if you don't follow WFB, but believe me, it's huge. All the "good old days" stuff is actually completely true to form for GW at the moment.

^^^ Here's how my unnamed "ideas in it that document that have existed in previous editions but were removed for good reason" were misinterpreted to be somehow related to background or the re-inclusion of older units and options.

[itcamefromthedeep]

The problem in 5th is that you punish armies that have no other choise than using more units, like IG, or punish
Space Marines for using their combat squad rule. I think the new system is something between the old and
the new, you are still punished for using more units, but not as hard as before. As an example, 1 Vyper with
scatterlaser costs 60 points, three cost 180 points. By the new kill point system if you have 3x 1 Vyper it is
worth 3x 2/2/1 (depending on the role on the chart) killpoints, so 6/6/3 in total. For the 3 Vyper in one unit
it is 4/4/3, so better in two of three situations in this case.

I noticed that mechanic and it ends up being very close to the old victory point system (which is bad for dissuading MSU).

This system would have MSU cost you *maybe* 50% more points in this case.
The Kill Points system would have MSU cost you 200% more points in this case.

That's quite the drop in the punishment of MSU armies. As far as I'm concerned this attempt gets the worst of both worlds. It doesn't discourage MSU and still has the oddity of units costing more victory points if deployed separately.

I briefly thought maybe this solution would actually work, but running the numbers showed me that MSU is still the way to go under this system. One of the reasons you can tell is that even the Kill Points system doesn't punish MSU enough considering the number of armies that still take cheap minimum-sized units because having more units on the table is just *that* much more effective.

And because of the new "holding ground" you cannot hide your units until the end of the game, because you collect the major amount of point "during" the game.

Victory points are worth triple at the end of the game, so hiding the Vyper until the end and then turbo-boosting onto an objective is a perfectly viable tactic, particularly since it can't then be contested. Also note that there's no more random game length, so if you go second there's no risk of your Vyper dying without claiming those points. My telepathy helmet is on the fritz right now, but I can claim that random game length was almost certainly instituted to prevent people from contesting on the last turn due to the risk of getting burned, a risk that was removed in this document (another move back toward the bad old days).

Scoring victory points each turn rather than the last turn only is a *great* idea, one that was instituted to great effect in several Apocalypse games I've played (the rules for scaling objective points are in Aocalypse Reload, and I'd strongly recommend instituting them in tournaments).

Not the same we had before, and by adding directed hits they actually opened a niche for snipers to be useful
against non-MC units. I like that, even if itīs not plausible (why can a soldier pick up the weapon from another
when he was killed by a Battlecannon, but not when he was killed by a sniper).

Snipers still won't be able to pick out many sergeants. Directed Hits comes in after the defender chooses which armor group the wound will go to, so an Eldar player can choose to put all the sniper wounds on grunts because the grunts usually have a different save than the Exarch. You'll be able to put the directed hits on the Exarch in some cases, but that just makes the situation stranger and less intuitive. For instance, you'll be able to pick out a Nob in a unit of Boyz, but only so long as the Nob doesn't take the 4+ armor save upgrade.

[Desca]

Victory points are worth triple at the end of the game, so hiding the Vyper until the end and then turbo-boosting onto an objective is a perfectly viable tactic

Actually, Vypers cannot score, so we should change the example, but I know what you mean.
The random game lenght is still in the rules, just not used for the Standard Mission. But thatīs
one point to add and we have the system back in. Also because you cannot denied the objective
there is just an advantage when you already killed the enemy at the point and donīt forget
thatīs your decision to go first, if you want to have the last turn, just donīt bid high, so you donīt
have the first turn, but the advantage of the last turn.

Snipers still won't be able to pick out many sergeants. Directed Hits comes in after the defender chooses which armor group the wound will go to, so an Eldar player can choose to put all the sniper wounds on grunts because the grunts usually have a different save than the Exarch. You'll be able to put the directed hits on the Exarch in some cases, but that just makes the situation stranger and less intuitive. For instance, you'll be able to pick out a Nob in a unit of Boyz, but only so long as the Nob doesn't take the 4+ armor save upgrade.

Did I missed something? I thought the current problem are meltas or special weapons, not single
Exarchs. For orc bosses, I would say ok, they are maybe a problem, but because you have to
put as many hits on them as they have wounds (now itīs only one), when you do enough wounds
itīs still an advantage to now.
And actually most sergeants have the same save as there troops. Imps, Space Marines (and all kinds
of them), many Eldar Exarchs (Dark Reaper, Scorpions, Warpspiders), Tau, Dark Eldar and so on. Actually
itīs pretty rare that the normal squadleader has a different save, mostly "added" squadleaders are the
exception, like Necron Lords, Warlocks, Wolfguards or ICs.

[Theocracity]

Regarding the sniper wound allocation question: though a sergeant can be protected by putting him in a different armor group, you're potentially exposing your special weapons to directed hits if you put the wound on your grunts. Thus it provokes a choice; how do you equip your squad, and who do you want to survive? It also gives tactical choices for the sniper if he had his choice of sergeants or specials.

In fact, you might armor up your sergeant specifically so he attracts sniper attention away from your specials. Putting the sniper wounds on him, when he has a better chance of saving, could preserve your meltas.

The idea that a sergeant can make himself safer by dressing differently is a bit counterintuitive, but it doesn't seem that bad considering all the strange abstractions we already take for granted in this game.

[Bubble Ghost]

^^^ Here's how my unnamed "ideas in it that document that have existed in previous editions but were removed for good reason" were misinterpreted to be somehow related to background or the re-inclusion of older units and options.

I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to Chapters Unwritten's post, which seemed to be putting forward the fact that this thing harks back to old stuff generally as evidence for it being fake.

Incidentally, I actually agree with many of your comments regarding deployment and game length and such. I just don't happen to think they're any reason to doubt that this thing originated from GW at some point.

[itcamefromthedeep]

I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to Chapters Unwritten's post, which seemed to be putting forward the fact that this thing harks back to old stuff generally as evidence for it being fake.

Yes, actually it was Chapters Unwritten who seemed to miss the memo (while responding to me).

I actually don't see much in the way of callbacks to previous background or artwork in the document. The design reversions all seem to be at best tangential to stuff like Shokk Attack Guns and Mole Mortars. It uses a Movement value, but that hardly means that it's 2e. The use of mechanics like Slow and Purposeful, Beasts, and Fleet all seem to call out for a Movement value anyway so I'm not convinced that the reintroduction of Movement here is a reason to think it's trying to be like 2e.

Games Workshop seems to do a lot of references to old Rogue Trader and 2e material, but that always seems to be in the art/models and the background, not in the mechanics.

Incidentally, I actually agree with many of your comments regarding deployment and game length and such. I just don't happen to think they're any reason to doubt that this thing originated from GW at some point.

Really? I think that if they made a mistake and then adequately corrected it, they wouldn't then undo the fix and leave it the way it was before. That seems like at least a weak indication that the author didn't understand the game design behind elements like Seize the Initiative, which implies that they're not on the actual design team. It's not proof positive of the document being a fake, but it does sound strong as far as circumstantial evidence goes.

[Bubble Ghost]

Yes, actually it was Chapters Unwritten who seemed to miss the memo (while responding to me).

I actually don't see much in the way of callbacks to previous background or artwork in the document. The design reversions all seem to be at best tangential to stuff like Shokk Attack Guns and Mole Mortars. It uses a Movement value, but that hardly means that it's 2e. The use of mechanics like Slow and Purposeful, Beasts, and Fleet all seem to call out for a Movement value anyway so I'm not convinced that the reintroduction of Movement here is a reason to think it's trying to be like 2e.

I'm trying to work out where you got the idea that I was saying it is "trying to be like 2e". It uses a lot of second-edition era nomenclature for concepts that aren't necessarily mechanically related - overwatch, mastery level, etc - which is where the nostalgia flares up for optimists (and cynics like Chapters Unwritten, who want to use the fact that it seems nostalgic to dismiss it). It's actually almost nothing like 2nd ed, but gives it frequent enough "shouts" to push people's buttons in a fan service kind of way (kind of like a Hollywood movie studio thinking people won't notice that their latest soulless remake is a mindless load of **** if they throw in a couple of hackneyed references to the original...). And it's that which is in keeping with what they're doing with both game systems at the moment.

I don't think we're actually at odds here.

Really? I think that if they made a mistake and then adequately corrected it, they wouldn't then undo the fix and leave it the way it was before. That seems like at least a weak indication that the author didn't understand the game design behind elements like Seize the Initiative, which implies that they're not on the actual design team. It's not proof positive of the document being a fake, but it does sound strong as far as circumstantial evidence goes.

Let me take a step back and see if I've understood how you're thinking here. You seem to have ruled out the possibility that it can be an early experimental GW thing, and then used the rationale that it would be dumb if it were the final product to rule out the possibility that it came from GW at all. Is that about right?

I do agree with you that it would be a dumb final product, and for many of the same reasons. The only thing I really disagree with you on is that it necessarily looks remotely final. And it's perfectly plausible - likely, even - that earlier on, they'd be changing all sorts of things, even things that work in the game's current context.

[itcamefromthedeep]

I'm trying to work out where you got the idea that I was saying it is "trying to be like 2e".

Well you did mention callbacks to old stuff and very few of the named design concepts from 3rd onward are gone. I do apologize for that assumption. You may have referenced callbacks to Rogue Trader era stuff that was missing from even 2e, though I'm honestly not sure what those could be.

Let me take a step back and see if I've understood how you're thinking here. You seem to have ruled out the possibility that it can be an early experimental GW thing, and then used the rationale that it would be dumb if it were the final product to rule out the possibility that it came from GW at all. Is that about right?

I'm afraid not.

If you know what works you don't take that out until you have a replacement. Early or late, I don't see why the design team would try out variations that they know from experience has a glaring problem.

Trying this system without mechanics to help mitigate MSU and aggressive deployment is like an Honda engineer saying "hey, why don't we try this new gasoline-powered car except not put a carburetter in it?" Only someone who doesn't know what the device does would think that's a good plan... unless the team has come up with some brilliant way of making an internal combustion engine work just as well without one.

Again, that is of course circumstantial evidence. It's technically possible that the design team just derped really hard when putting this together.

[Desca]

This system would have MSU cost you *maybe* 50% more points in this case.
The Kill Points system would have MSU cost you 200% more points in this case.
...even the Kill Points system doesn't punish MSU enough considering the number of armies that still take cheap minimum-sized units because having more units on the table is just *that* much more effective.

If you know what works you don't take that out until you have a replacement. Early or late, I don't see why the design team would try out variations that they know from experience has a glaring problem.

I donīt think thatīs right. You said for yourself that the current idea
of killpoints is still not working. If I design something, and it doesnīt work,
I donīt add something again, and again, and again, so I have a punch of
rules that noone really want. I remove the added part and try to find some-
thing better. Also the add of the non-scoring embarked units also changes
this point, and GW donīt want to punish transports (vehicles cost a alot of
money), but they donīt want them to rule everything. If they add this AND
keep the current killpoints, I think it is to much, maybe they even tried it.

[Bubble Ghost]

If you know what works you don't take that out until you have a replacement. Early or late, I don't see why the design team would try out variations that they know from experience has a glaring problem.

Trying this system without mechanics to help mitigate MSU and aggressive deployment is like an Honda engineer saying "hey, why don't we try this new gasoline-powered car except not put a carburetter in it?" Only someone who doesn't know what the device does would think that's a good plan... unless the team has come up with some brilliant way of making an internal combustion engine work just as well without one.

Again, that is of course circumstantial evidence. It's technically possible that the design team just derped really hard when putting this together.

The engine thing is a poor analogy, because game rules sometimes DO work differently when you change the context around them. I'm not saying it WOULD work any differently, and I'm not suggesting anyone on the design team would have thought it would either - I agree with you on a lot of the theory you're coming out with here. But you're seriously underestimating the amount of poking the rules with a stick to see what happens that they like to do. That's why it's entirely plausible to me that there could be any number of reasons someone wanted to try this out, even if itcamefromthedeep from off of the internet can't imagine what they are, and even if they thought they knew what the result would be. It really, honestly is plausible, and that's ALL I am saying that it is.

[Tapeworm711]

On MSU:

• Kill points: In the context of this leak, running MSU does give up more KP than running large units.
• Assault: In this ruleset, assaults not only have a larger threat range, but also more attacks (bonuses from assault weapons, relentless bonuses), and more models being able to attack (3" rangem instead of 2") which makes MSU's that much more susceptible to being wiped.
• Scoring Objectives: MSU is less resilient, therefore harder to hold an objective for extended periods.

MSU still has advantages of allowing you to target more units, as well as giving your opponent more targets to deal with. I've played lots of games with this set (mostly my modified version, but these rules remain unchanged), it feels there is a good of balance to the MSU vs. Larger units. But that could just be my experience.

[itcamefromthedeep]

if you want to have the last turn, just donīt bid high, so you donīt
have the first turn, but the advantage of the last turn.

Bidding high doesn't let you get first turn, it gets you choice of first or second. Bidding low means you might be forced to go first.

Did I missed something? I thought the current problem are meltas or special weapons, not single Exarchs.

The problem is the abundance of cheap transports. The answer to the problem is lots of meltaguns. So no, specialists are not the problem.

Sniper weapons can allow you to shoot specialists, but only if those specialists are not in a transport. If we're talking about a suicide melta squad here then once it has left the transport it is expect to die in its entirety, so sniping out the specialists isn't helping you much there.

What snipers do punish are troops that decide to avoid transports, because they have specialists that can be targeted by snipers. This suggests to me that the net effect of Directed Strikes is to encourage mechanized armies (and therefore more meltagun specialists with which to counter mechanized armies).

I think that the way to solve the problem of suicide melta squads is to make cheap transports less attractive so that meltaguns and similar anti-tank special weapons won't be as important.

I remove the added part and try to find some-
thing better.

Sure, but I'd expect you to have some ideas for something better *before* throwing the old ideas out. If you're going to try out alternatives, first you need alternatives.

Games Workshop doesn't appear to set the points values of models for the purposes of selling some minis over others. Instead they they look like they try to price models fairly (with mixed results). For instance Draigo and Paladins are among the least expensive ways to put an army together yet they remain quite good in terms of effectiveness.

But you're seriously underestimating the amount of poking the rules with a stick to see what happens that they like to do.

They've already done these particular bits of poking before. That's why I find your scenario possible but not plausible.

MSU is less resilient, therefore harder to hold an objective for extended periods.

It's the other way 'round. MSU is almost always more resilient to shooting because there's more opportunity for shots to be wasted on overkill. In assault MSU limits the damage the enemy can do by having the same number of minis but in different places, making it more difficult to assault an equivalent value of models at once.

For example, I could take a single brood of 30 Termagants or 2 broods of 15 Termagants. If any brood of of Termagants gets assaulted by a full squad of Assault Marines the brood is screwed, regardless of whether the unit consists of 15 or 30 models. If I go the MSU version and do broods of 15 I can limit the damage because when I lose a brood to assault I'm losing 15 models rather than all 30.

With regard to shooting if you have 3 separate Leman Russes then a unit of Fire Dragons can only shoot one Russ a turn, which means that they can only kill one model with their meltaguns regardless of how many 4+s they roll on the vehicle damage table. If however those Russes are in a squadron then the Fire Dragons get to shoot at all 3, meaning that fewer of those meltagun shots are going to be wasted to "overkill" damage. MSU is usually more resilient because it causes enemy shots to be wasted on overkill.

Applying these principles, 2 combat squads of Space Marines with a significant gap between them will probably do a better job of holding an objective than if they were all together in a single unit because when they split up they tend to become more resilient.

[omegoku]

The idea that a sergeant can make himself safer by dressing differently is a bit counterintuitive, but it doesn't seem that bad considering all the strange abstractions we already take for granted in this game.

Not really, the sniper will look down the scope and see that the Nob is the biggest Ork, kill him and the unit might fall into infighting! But wait, the Ork is wearing Heavy armour, making a kill shot less likely, better to aim at the boy carrying the rokkit launcher as he is getting really close to that Rhino..

Whether the opponent assigns the sniper shot to the tougher Sgt or the regular members, it can make sense from a fluff point of view!
And so on!

[Bubble Ghost]

They've already done these particular bits of poking before. That's why I find your scenario possible but not plausible.

But not in this context. Like I said, there could be all sorts of reasons why someone wanted to try this out, regardless of whether we can immediately see what they were or not. That's what I find plausible. I completely understand your point but I think you've based that point on assumptions.

Then again, that's my opinion.

We're going to be saying tomayto, tomahto forever at this rate. Agree to disagree? I realise you know you're right, but still.


____


re. directed hits, a different save making you immune to snipers is massively less ridiculous than wound allocation as it stands. It actually fits in with 40K's pulpy philosophy in general, that camouflage is for wusses and you are protected instead by the radiant manliness of your outfit. I absolutely love the mechanic, but for it to be balanced probably requires leaders, or at least the original leader, to become slightly less important. A penalty rather than the outright inability to regroup would probably be better. As for who gets to be immune to it and who doesn't, that would be for codexes to sort out - I don't imagine it would be too long before every Space Marine book was conveniently giving sergeants an artificer armour option, though...

[Theocracity]

What snipers do punish are troops that decide to avoid transports, because they have specialists that can be targeted by snipers. This suggests to me that the net effect of Directed Strikes is to encourage mechanized armies (and therefore more meltagun specialists with which to counter mechanized armies).

But there are other ways to avoid directed strikes. Shooting through units prevents it, which means cheap screening units can protect valuable units from snipers - which would benefit foot-based hordes. Shielded units also are safe, and you can use Strategic points to give relevant units that rule - which could benefit smaller specialist squads.

A penalty rather than the outright inability to regroup would probably be better.

I thought I remember reading that the rules for falling back are different; you only fall back once, and then have limited actions and are more vulnerable to being destroyed via surround. You don't necessarily just flee off the board uncontrollably. And since banner wielders and other units can take command there's other mitigating factors.

[itcamefromthedeep]

But not in this context.
...

Agree to disagree?

You're not agreeing to disagree. You're making another argument.

The context only matters if what's changing is relevant. A Silverado and a Chevy Volt are very different cars. Going to a hybrid-electric engine however doesn't mean that you should try out the new car without a carburettor. What matters is that the vehicle still has an internal-combustion engine. Until *that part* changes there's no reason to think it'll be any better without a component to blend air and fuel to make the combustion more complete.

In this case these rules have done nothing to stop the problem of, say, aggressive/defensive deployments. You could remove that problem by reducing the ranges of guns to extremely small distances the way Warmachine does it, but that sort of thing isn't in this document.

Plenty of stuff has changed, but none of it is relevant.

re. directed hits, a different save making you immune to snipers is massively less ridiculous than wound allocation as it stands. It actually fits in with 40K's pulpy philosophy in general, that camouflage is for wusses and you are protected instead by the radiant manliness of your outfit. I absolutely love the mechanic, but for it to be balanced probably requires leaders, or at least the original leader, to become slightly less important. A penalty rather than the outright inability to regroup would probably be better. As for who gets to be immune to it and who doesn't, that would be for codexes to sort out - I don't imagine it would be too long before every Space Marine book was conveniently giving sergeants an artificer armour option, though...

Are you honestly trying to rationalize why you can pick out Striking Scorpion and Warp Spider Exarchs, but not Howling Banshee or Swooping Hawk ones?

You *like* it this way? Honestly? It's pants-on-head silly. Saying that this is a necessary evil is one thing, and that's a kind of argument that that can hold water for counter-intuitive game mechanics. Saying that you prefer it this way because it's consistent with the style boggles my mind. It isn't even consistent with itself!

But there are other ways to avoid directed strikes. Shooting through units prevents it, which means cheap screening units can protect valuable units from snipers - which would benefit foot-based hordes. Shielded units also are safe, and you can use Strategic points to give relevant units that rule - which could benefit smaller specialist squads.

You have to spend resources to make up for not using transports, which is a push toward using transports.

Foot-based Guard are not going to benefit from having to use screening units to protect their blob squads. Foot-based Marines don't usually have any screening units at all. Foot-based Eldar similarly can't afford screening units. Foot-based Necrons also can't afford screening units. Just about the only army that regularly uses screening units without important squad members are Tyranids, the ones least vulnerable to Directed Strikes anyway.

Using Strategic Points won't help foot-based armies keep pace with mechanized forces because mechanized forces can use those same points for other benefits. It doesn't close the gap, it just shifts the gap in capability to a different place.

[Desca]

Foot-based Guard are not going to benefit from having to use screening units to protect their blob squads.

The really important models in the blob have a different save, so they are fine. And sergeants seem very important in troops, but one special command can rally your units without a squadleader, so they are not suffering more than others.

Foot-based Marines don't usually have any screening units at all.

Space Marines can rally everytime and are not destroyed when they are broken and in 12" range of an enemy, so only the special equipment on the character is in danger, but not more or less than every plasma- or meltagun.

Foot-based Eldar similarly can't afford screening units.

The dex is designed for 4th, so we cannot know if there will be a change. Actually they have screening units, but they are to expensive at the moment. The Dark Reapers suffer most from this changes, Warp Spider can avoid LOS to snipers and Scorpions try to get into combat by deep strike in first round (infiltrate) and would have a greater risk of losing their Exarch if he would have a different save, in case of enough wounds by defensive fire.

Foot-based Necrons also can't afford screening units.

The Lords all can have a different save than the troops, and the destructors can be screened by the troops. And they donīt have real special weapons in there troops, so they are pretty save.



I think one of the most important factors wasnīt discussed at all: Embarked units have no defensive fire, but deep striking units can charge and shoot. Even with 6 Multilasers and a Plasmacannon, what would be a lot stuff in range, a IG would have problems against an organized (with the new reserve rules) deep striking force cracking their vehicles in cc and shooting at the passengers (or even charging them too with the charge by chance rule). I know that a deep striking tactic may not work against many things, but a few DS army destroying the games of pure mech armies in a tournament could actually change the meta to a more flexible build.

[Bubble Ghost]

I thought I remember reading that the rules for falling back are different; you only fall back once, and then have limited actions and are more vulnerable to being destroyed via surround. You don't necessarily just flee off the board uncontrollably. And since banner wielders and other units can take command there's other mitigating factors.

Yeah, but broken units can't score, and I suspect it might be slightly too easy to snipe/torrent a unit out of scoring contention. Having said that I have no real idea how it would pan out in practice, that's just an impression.

Plenty of stuff has changed, but none of it is relevant.

Really? I'd call the changes to the reserve and deep strike rules pretty relevant to deployment - that's a reason we can see that someone might have wanted to test something else out (and this would be just a snapshot of the development process, remember, not every revision is a shot at final perfection). And that's not even what I was talking about, because my point was that there could be any number of others.

Are you honestly trying to rationalize why you can pick out Striking Scorpion and Warp Spider Exarchs, but not Howling Banshee or Swooping Hawk ones?

Of course not. But that's something for the next Eldar codex to worry about. As an Eldar player myself, I'd happily take that silliness for a while if it meant better core rules.

[Theocracity]

You have to spend resources to make up for not using transports, which is a push toward using transports.

Foot-based Guard are not going to benefit from having to use screening units to protect their blob squads. Foot-based Marines don't usually have any screening units at all. Foot-based Eldar similarly can't afford screening units. Foot-based Necrons also can't afford screening units. Just about the only army that regularly uses screening units without important squad members are Tyranids, the ones least vulnerable to Directed Strikes anyway.

Using Strategic Points won't help foot-based armies keep pace with mechanized forces because mechanized forces can use those same points for other benefits. It doesn't close the gap, it just shifts the gap in capability to a different place.

But transports have point costs as well. In the current edition there's enough reasons to mech up that spending those points are a no-brainer, but if things shift (I don't think they're shifted enough in this set but they're closer) then different army builds could get similar protection by spending points differently.

IG could certainly use screening units. A cheap 10 man squad with limited specials could be put in the sniper's fire lane, protecting the commissars and sergeants. Marines are pretty tough to start, and footslogging generally isn't their army's theme. Necron are tough and don't have vulnerable specials - their courts can take protective measures. Eldar are outdated anyway and could get things that mitigate. Orks could also benefit from cheap grot screens.

Whether or not you use strategic points could be a tactical decision. You might choose to shield units with important jobs and not worry about protecting everyone. Of course, you'd only need to really worry about them if you fear snipers or shooty ICs - something that's not garaunteed to be on the board, as even with the new role they're a bit niche and can be easily mitigated.

Transports are still a little too easy of a choice in this iteration of the rules, but I like that they're encouraging new builds and new ways to spend points to make your army more interesting.