Now, comparing the last 6 months of 7th with the last 6 months of 8th and it was not better but just different.
So if 9th is really the best Edition ever is something we will know after 10th was announced (as early 9th will always be better than late 8th just because the new core is written to correct current mistakes but this does not mean that there won't be new mistakes made)
Oh come on ! Everyone I know had stopped playing last 6 months of 7th. 8th atm is much, much better. I mean it has tons of issues, both balance and core mecanics, but we still are in a way better spot than last semester of 7th (which the worse 40k ever for me, though I only started at 4th ed)
Hard to beat the glorious days of index book rules beginning of 8th. Easy and balanced for everyone. Now 9th is of to a very bad start considering the double bloat of myriad bonus rules and a handfull of rulebooks/sources for each army.
I hope thats a joke, those indexes were aweful.
Responding to Kodo's comment: Dude, you clearly never played a single game in the last 6 months of 7th. You wanna talk busted? Any one of the 7th edition deathstars would be literally unstoppable in 8th. You thought pre-nerf Ironhands were broken? Imagine if they had great melee, 12" movement, invisibility, and bumped their FNP up to 2+++. And that's not even counting the pre-faq period where you could get the FNP to literally 1++ and autopass because FNPs weren't technically covered under '1s always fail'.
At the end of 7th a unit of 5 blue horrors could have enough defensives to completely shrug off 2000pts worth of shooting and melee, not even counting their unlimited free splits. 99% damage reduction was given out like candy to the point where even 7th edition CWE, the single most broken codex ever released, just couldn't keep up with all the crazy multi-faction, multi-supplement deathstars out there. They even had to straight up ban several psychic powers because it would have completely obliterated the game.
If you don't like 8th, that's fine. Just don't pretend that 7th wasn't comparatively an absolutely unplayable dumpster fire at the end of it's lifespan.
..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?
... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The video of the playtesters was mostly just their impressions, but one of them referred to the improvement to vehicles. He said vehicles and not tanks. This indicates that the hints given in the first reveal regarding firing out of melee etc will likely apply to all Vehicles and they are not making a new Keyword for Tanks.
Of course, I could be totally wrong! I've been wrong before...
That is exciting, because honestly most transports in the game right now are pretty crap. The only ones that see any use either have some sort of gimmick to them or are just excellent gun platforms that happen to have transport capacity. When was the last time you saw a rhino in a competitive build of...anything? Even the Impulsor, which looks solid on paper, has been reserved for middle of the pack lists.
I just want to ask a question real quick, is the 'rules bloat' really that bad? I have 6 armies and between my gaming group each army is probably owned twice over and never have we had a problem with keeping track of books/rules. Are there areas where you literally have to have every book, FAQ, and errata or literally cant play? I print out some pages here and there but never has it been close to unwieldy or hard to manage for anyone I've met who's played 40k. I don't want to instigate, I'm just trying to see where you all are coming from.
Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.
"We'll make a campaign system whereby the winners get stronger and the losers get weaker!"
*That One Guy everyone hates who is a huge power gamer is able to leverage these advantages and quickly becomes unstoppable*
*The guy everyone loves to play because he plays weak fluffy armies quickly can't play anymore because of the crushing disadvantages*
*Everyone quits except that one guy everybody hates*
"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."
They explained that 1- games will be kept at a power level both can play, if you have more you can have it as roster kt style
2- the least experienced side gets extra command points
But ranting is easier i guess
Bdrone wrote: ..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?
... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?
No. Have you paid zero attention to their initial announcements?
"Crusade" is an optional way to play narratively driven games. We learned today that "Crusade" will feature in the main rulebook with the 'basics' of the systems while codices and campaign books going forward in the new edition will give more specific stuff. The mentions were relics, honors, and scars(which is the term they're using for injuries/lingering effects) specific to the warzones/factions. There will be unit rosters that you can keep track of stuff on, available digitally as downloads(they didn't say whether free or not but I can't imagine them selling it) or you can photocopy them from the books.
Bdrone wrote: ..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?
... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?
Give it two months post-launch and none will be using this. Those already running Campaigns will probably just stick to a Match Play with their own odd homerule tossed in for flavour the old fashioned way.
It's just a glorified virtual shopping list to 'encourage' you to buy the new Dreadnought to inter your Captain in and you should also buy a new Captain to replace the one who just died and make him more unique.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.
You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?
But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.
Team. Singular, not teams. There is one 40k rules team and they work as a group. There is one AoS team and they work as a group. The only splitting off these teams do is someone is likely responsible for doing all the typing of each book, but they work together to come up with rules and the like.
What the 40k team is to adopt AoS's terminology bible approach so they have premade templates to write rules off of that keep the language clear and consistent.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.
You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?
But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.
Team. Singular, not teams. There is one 40k rules team and they work as a group. There is one AoS team and they work as a group. The only splitting off these teams do is someone is likely responsible for doing all the typing of each book, but they work together to come up with rules and the like.
What the 40k team is to adopt AoS's terminology bible approach so they have premade templates to write rules off of that keep the language clear and consistent.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
You may have to take into account production with that. C:CSM may have actually been written 12-18 months prior and production scheduling of the actual models (fairly big release really) delayed the release of the rules, whereas C:SM may have been written 3-6 months prior. So you have 2 codex 5 months apart that may actually be close to 12-18 months apart in reality.
Good point. That could be the case. Although there are still outliers, such as the Iron Hands supplement compared to the other chapters. Given gw's lack of transparency I guess we'll never know how that happened. *shrug*
You may have to take into account production with that. C:CSM may have actually been written 12-18 months prior and production scheduling of the actual models (fairly big release really) delayed the release of the rules, whereas C:SM may have been written 3-6 months prior. So you have 2 codex 5 months apart that may actually be close to 12-18 months apart in reality.
Chaos Space Marines also was billed as a "second edition" that you really only needed if you didn't want to buy Vigilus Ablaze for the updated and new datasheets.
Don't believe me?
Here's what it says in bold at the bottom of the product description for the Chaos Space Marines Codex:
Codex: Chaos Space Marines product page wrote:Important Note
This is an updated version of Codex: Chaos Space Marines, containing new art, lore and updated rules encompassing new content from Imperium Nihilus: Vigilus Ablaze, including Prayers to the Dark Gods, updated units, and more. If you already own a copy of Chaos Space Marines and Vigilus Ablaze, you'll find this book a handy compilation. However, you do not need a copy of the original codex or Vigilus Ablaze to use this product!
Vigilus Ablaze also had this bit:
Vigilus Ablaze product page wrote: New and updated datasheets for 12 Daemon and Chaos Space Marine units (including Abaddon the Despoiler, as well as the Noctilith Crown and Skull Altar scenery pieces), 6 Prayers to the Dark Gods for use by models with the Priest keyword (and an additional Prayer for each of the four Chaos Powers), army abilities common to many of the Chaos units, as well as weapon profiles and points values
Why Chaos Space Marines was billed as a second edition/"updated version of the codex"? I don't know. Codex: Space Marines didn't have that. It's a strong contender that part of the reasoning why CSM's book was so wacky is that there's a bigger shift coming when a new edition of the codex drops--and I can't help but wonder if it's going to be taking the supplement route.
Look, GW, I KNOW what crusade is going to be, it's going to be what everyone THINKS they want from a campaign, and whines if it doesn't exist within a campaign's rule structure, but then hates in practice and complains about and quits midway through causing the campaign to peter out and die with a whimper.
"We'll make a campaign system whereby the winners get stronger and the losers get weaker!"
*That One Guy everyone hates who is a huge power gamer is able to leverage these advantages and quickly becomes unstoppable*
*The guy everyone loves to play because he plays weak fluffy armies quickly can't play anymore because of the crushing disadvantages*
*Everyone quits except that one guy everybody hates*
"Wow, how could that have gone so poorly! Weird! I cannot imagine how I could have avoided that! Clearly I did not have ENOUGH BOOKKEEPING TO KEEP TRACK OF, I'll fix that problem next time."
So in other words, you know absolutely nothing about Crusade. Maybe you should actually listen to what they have to say before telling them they are wrong.
GW has a track record of creating that sort of thing with half assed efforts at thinking them through, then forgetting about said thing. Only newcomers could feel excited. All other players know the drill. No one at GW will even remember what "crusade" is 5 months from now.
Index times where when they should have launched this. Back then rules were so simple you could have added campaign rules easy. Now... Too late boy, too God D late
Who on earth wants to deal with extra rules ? PA rules, Vigilus rules, 8th or 9th rules ? I mean at some point you'd have to be a masochist to think "Hmmm, I want to add some more rules and bookeeping, that is not enough".
Of course the first 500 point games (25 PL is that right ?) will be done quickly. 50 PL games too. But then... Maaaaaan
What works for AoS doesn't necessarily work for 40k, AOS is not as complex (probably a good thing too). we could have had more GW brainpower put into 9th, instead of dedicating brainpower to a "dead soon after arrival" concept
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, Crusade doesn't seem too bad. How do you know if your Crusading Opponent earned his points though?
I understand there's documentation to show that points have been spent, but how do you know if he's fairly earned those points to begin with?
I appreciate the attempt at trying to get campaign mechanics to work with Pick Up games, but I'm uncertain on the details of it.
If the advantages you get against his points are balanced it shouldn’t matter, he’d be cheating himself mostly. If not, well it’s up to you if you want to fight an army with those bonusses in the end
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, Crusade doesn't seem too bad. How do you know if your Crusading Opponent earned his points though?
I understand there's documentation to show that points have been spent, but how do you know if he's fairly earned those points to begin with?
I appreciate the attempt at trying to get campaign mechanics to work with Pick Up games, but I'm uncertain on the details of it.
I highly doubt you'll see people agreeing to play Crusade games with people in pugs unless they're already familiar with the person or also a Crusader. The way their own example is parsed is very much a "Hey, I know you're playing a tourney practice game, do you mind if we play Crusade, too?" kind of scenario.
Just absolutely strangers, random pick-ups of Crusade vs. tournament-practice is probably unlikely.
But my GW store has been running lots of fun campaigns for years and I am pretty sure there'll be a 40+ people Crusade campaign up and going going as soon as this is out (and Corona is over).
Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.
Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'
They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.
Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.
Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'
They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.
Not sure if it is explained in the article but the increase in army size only works for your roster army a la kill team, for the actual game it will be same power level.
They said it in the twitch interview
Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.
If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.
It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.
Ice_can wrote: Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.
If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.
It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.
You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?
Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.
Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'
They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.
Not sure if it is explained in the article but the increase in army size only works for your roster army a la kill team, for the actual game it will be same power level.
They said it in the twitch interview
Oh, so you're buying a sideboard so you can min/max depending on who you're fighting.
Ice_can wrote: Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.
If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.
It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.
You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?
I think it's more that it lends credence to the idea that GW is still desperately trying to design the game around a bunch of guys in the studio throwing their whacky or fluff armies across the table with beer and pretzels, rather than getting on board with the idea that even at a casual level, the vast majority of people would take a relatively well balanced ruleset with an eye to win rather than narrative/lolsorandom.
Penalty for using the 'forge its own narrative' PR line from 7th edition.
Not sure if Narrative players care that this inherently assumes soup (built from 7 factions- Imperium, Chaos, Elf, Nid, Ork, Necrons and Tau), but that is the default of a 'crusade campaign'
They claim underdog bonuses, but don't explain them. If they don't match the 'just increase your army size' bonus for 1 'RP,' this system seems inherently unworkable.
Not sure if it is explained in the article but the increase in army size only works for your roster army a la kill team, for the actual game it will be same power level. They said it in the twitch interview
Oh, so you're buying a sideboard so you can min/max depending on who you're fighting.
Which is different from bringing extra models and writing your Matched Play list at the store how?
I think you have the framing backwards. Tournament Guy in this situation doesn't have a fellow tournament guy to pair off with, and asks for a game with crusade folks.
This isn't forcing interactions this is giving opponentless Tournament Guy a way to have not wasted a trip to the FLGS.
Responding to Kodo's comment: Dude, you clearly never played a single game in the last 6 months of 7th. You wanna talk busted?
you know, the point is that at the end of 7th it was no big deal to get the best 40k ever out, as after the mess that was, Index Armies and Streamlined Core rules was such a huge improvement that everyone forgot how well 7th started after the mess 6th edition was
and as far as I remember, 6th was the only Edition were people felt it was a step back or downgrade from the prevous one and not a step forward
now 8th is not as worse as 7th was, but powercreep and bloat is there, and just by cleaning that things up 9th will be felt as a step forward. (It is nothing that a proper Errata won't do as well, but GW won't never make big changes with a free document)
question is how long it will last and what will happen if the first Codex written for 9th is released
so if 9th will be better than 8th or worse in the end, we won't know at the very beginning as the problems were never the core rules but powercreep and bloat that was added after
Ice_can wrote: Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.
If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.
It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.
You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?
I dont mind playing not cutting edge tournament winning lists all the time a lot of the guys I play with a more narative/hobby dudes and thats fine but even they gave up on PL in 8th as it was so broken.
They will want to play this type of game and I dont mind but GW forcing PL back into this system already makes me worried that this will be so brakeable.
Ice_can wrote: Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.
If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.
It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.
You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?
I dont mind playing not cutting edge tournament winning lists all the time a lot of the guys I play with a more narative/hobby dudes and thats fine but even they gave up on PL in 8th as it was so broken.
They will want to play this type of game and I dont mind but GW forcing PL back into this system already makes me worried that this will be so brakeable.
Yeah. Deathwatch PL is not the same as Necron or Daemon PL (as it stands right now).
Gee, if only they had said early on that they're going to start doing Power Level revisions regularly.
They explained PL. It makes sense the way they think of it:
Power Level is meant to make it so you can build lists easier on the fly or for pickup games.
Points is for tournaments/competitive play where lists usually get submitted in advance.
Kanluwen wrote: Gee, if only they had said early on that they're going to start doing Power Level revisions regularly.
They explained PL. It makes sense the way they think of it:
Power Level is meant to make it so you can build lists easier on the fly or for pickup games.
Points is for tournaments/competitive play where lists usually get submitted in advance.
Have they said that? I was not aware.
But it's just less precise points. If you struggle with adding (28+7+7+10)*3 for one unit, Power Level makes it easier, sure... But I don't think I've ever met anyone who struggled with basic arithmetic like that and had an interest in 40k. I have experienced people who were confused about what exactly they needed to add together, but that's because GW made points more annoying to use, not because Power Level is really any better.
And it still doesn't address that a Deathwatch Veteran Squad can be 9 PL (5 Bolter dudes) or 9 PL (Sergeant with Storm Shield and Bolter, 4 men with Frag Cannons).
Whereas a Plaguebeare squad can be 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers) or 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers with three Instruments and three Icons).
The Veterans go from a cheap, throwaway unit that can plug some shots to downrange to a murder machine.
The Plaguebearers go from a tough tarpit to... A tough tarpit with minor morale resilience and slightly better advance and charge rolls.
JNAProductions wrote: Deathwatch PL is not the same as Necron or Daemon PL (as it stands right now).
Do you mean they changed the formula used to calculate it (if I recall correctly; minimum points for those models, plus maximum points for them, divided by 40) or simply the fact that models with few options (like necrons or daemons) tend to be relatively good value compared to models with numerous options (like deathwatch) so long as they don't actually take a ridiculous number of those options?
JNAProductions wrote: Deathwatch PL is not the same as Necron or Daemon PL (as it stands right now).
Do you mean they changed the formula used to calculate it (if I recall correctly; minimum points for those models, plus maximum points for them, divided by 40) or simply the fact that models with few options (like necrons or daemons) tend to be relatively good value compared to models with numerous options (like deathwatch) so long as they don't actually take a ridiculous number of those options?
I mean that 4 PL for 10 Plaguebearers is reasonably accurate, because they have minimal options.
Whereas 9 PL for 5 Veterans is not, because they can be worth far, FAR less or far, FAR more than that.
What I find really baffling about power level is that in the one instance where it would be really useful to not have to add points up (reinforcements summoned during the battle) *they didn't use them*.
Perfect Organism wrote: What I find really baffling about power level is that in the one instance where it would be really useful to not have to add points up (reinforcements summoned during the battle) *they didn't use them*.
They kinda do-at least for Daemon Summoning.
You have to roll equal to or above their PL on a 3d6 roll to summon a unit. But then you have actual points for what you can summon.
But it's just less precise points. If you struggle with adding (28+7+7+10)*3 for one unit, Power Level makes it easier, sure... But I don't think I've ever met anyone who struggled with basic arithmetic like that and had an interest in 40k. I have experienced people who were confused about what exactly they needed to add together, but that's because GW made points more annoying to use, not because Power Level is really any better.
Let me put this bluntly then.
If I'm doing a pick-up game? I don't want to have to bust out a calculator or pencil+paper. You're welcome to consider it as "struggling with basic arithmetic" or whatever, but it's a convenience thing. I don't want to mess around making sure I paid X points for the squad's plasma gun, Y for their heavy bolter, or whatever.
And it still doesn't address that a Deathwatch Veteran Squad can be 9 PL (5 Bolter dudes) or 9 PL (Sergeant with Storm Shield and Bolter, 4 men with Frag Cannons).
Whereas a Plaguebeare squad can be 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers) or 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers with three Instruments and three Icons).
The Veterans go from a cheap, throwaway unit that can plug some shots to downrange to a murder machine.
The Plaguebearers go from a tough tarpit to... A tough tarpit with minor morale resilience and slightly better advance and charge rolls.
When they made their mention of reviewing Power, they made it sound like part of what they'll be looking at is whether or not some stuff is going to start getting treated like Tau having drones or the like(which cost additional Power).
It's such a minor time-saver. To draw to another point, you'll have to spend more time talking with your opponent about how competitive to make the game than you will adding points up.
Plus Battlescribe exists.
And Veterans actually DO add PL for each model added. But the model's wargear is irrelevant to the PL-meaning that 10 guys with bolters costs 19 PL, while 10 guys with 4 Frag Cannons, 6 Storm Shields, and 6 Storm Bolters costs 19 PL as well.
Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
Kanluwen wrote: Gee, if only they had said early on that they're going to start doing Power Level revisions regularly.
They explained PL. It makes sense the way they think of it:
Power Level is meant to make it so you can build lists easier on the fly or for pickup games.
Points is for tournaments/competitive play where lists usually get submitted in advance.
Have they said that? I was not aware.
But it's just less precise points. If you struggle with adding (28+7+7+10)*3 for one unit, Power Level makes it easier, sure... But I don't think I've ever met anyone who struggled with basic arithmetic like that and had an interest in 40k. I have experienced people who were confused about what exactly they needed to add together, but that's because GW made points more annoying to use, not because Power Level is really any better.
And it still doesn't address that a Deathwatch Veteran Squad can be 9 PL (5 Bolter dudes) or 9 PL (Sergeant with Storm Shield and Bolter, 4 men with Frag Cannons).
Whereas a Plaguebeare squad can be 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers) or 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers with three Instruments and three Icons).
The Veterans go from a cheap, throwaway unit that can plug some shots to downrange to a murder machine.
The Plaguebearers go from a tough tarpit to... A tough tarpit with minor morale resilience and slightly better advance and charge rolls.
Exactlly most people will have their list or lists writen before they turn up for their game as no-one has time for waiting on your oppoenet to figure out what unit and what models they need to get out of their case to build their army.
Generally my list at least is built the night before and the models I need packed ready to go.
Writing a list at the table promotes list tailoring and other bad sportsmanship.
Additionally how long does it take you to put a 2k list into battlescribe etc? If its more than about 10-15 miniuts your doing something wrong.
Speaking of which just a quick look 4 2k lists for the same army same.subfactions has a powerlevel range from 125 to 113.
My other factions is 107 for its 2k list, that is a massive swing if your playing PL
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
You'll have the GW app to build the list in should you unable to use software you don't like.
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.
You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?
But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.
There is one team periord, not one team per book. Clearly the booka where written at different times. CSM was written with the intent of a living edition update, while Marines took the approach of a new edition coming and building towards that. Design goals change, and release date isn't the same as when it was sent off to print.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bdrone wrote: ..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?
... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?
No, they made nareative a real game system is what they did.
The only place PL even remotely worked was in Appocolypse and guess what GW managed to make that an nightmare of horrifically overncosted and undercosted units, even with weapons upgrades and wargear having costs in PL.
Heck even pointa aint prefect but jeso PL is a joke in regards to balance I have yet to meet anyone who genuinely uses PL for games.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...
Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And just so we're clear: It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.
Did you not read what I posted?
There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies. But if you want it finessed, fine: Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power. So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...
Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.
Did you not read what I posted?
There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?
But then you have Autocannons as the same price as Lascannons as Missile Launchers as Heavy Bolters.
As for Battlescribe, again, it is NOT a rules source. I don't rely on Battlescribe telling me whether or not my list is legal-only the points value.
gorgon wrote: Points are so easy to calculate that no one ever goofs it up at tournaments. Especially not in the top tables.
Being 10-40 points out on a 2k one of games likely won't change the result, it likely wouldn't in an event, the difference ia thats not the point.
People get DQ'd etc as the idea is to make it as closely matched forces as possible having that free plasma pistol etc could have which is why most people voluntarily withdrawn themselves.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
It's almost like they should have one clear vision and design purpose they should follow to the end. Asking a bit much from such a big company I know.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
JNAProductions wrote: But then you have Autocannons as the same price as Lascannons as Missile Launchers as Heavy Bolters.
Which, again, goes to the fact that Power Level NOW, ASIT STANDS CURRENTLY, is centered around the bodies for a unit not all the extra gubbins.
That's why that Devastator Squad you brought up is 6 Power for 5 Bolter armed models to start with rather than 3. That's why a Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard Squad is 4 Power instead of the 3 that the additional 5 are. The 'costs' are frontloaded.
As for Battlescribe, again, it is NOT a rules source. I don't rely on Battlescribe telling me whether or not my list is legal-only the points value
That's great and all, but you're not the only person ever to use Battlescribe. I've had far too many people try to use Battlescribe as a codex and list checker to ever trust anyone at this point throwing a list my way from it.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
It's almost like they should have one clear vision and design purpose they should follow to the end. Asking a bit much from such a big company I know.
It's almost as if circumstances can change forcing a pivot on existing goals and people should be more understanding in hiw their own feedback can force design goals to change in a game.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Sorry, but no. New editions take more time than that. They always talk about new editions taking several years. The Chaos SM copypasta would have been happening alongside 9th edition rules.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Then release that codex when you drop the new edition not a year ahead of that and reduce the current edution to play this codex or GTFO with winning and spend the next six months unbreaking the game from your mistakes.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Then release that codex when you drop the new edition not a year ahead of that and reduce the current edution to play this codex or GTFO with winning and spend the next six months unbreaking the game from your mistakes.
Nah. They instead decided to push out whatever they had playtested to continue releasing stuff that was ready to go via PA so armies could get updated while the new edition was bring worked on.
I'm not saying what they did was the best option, just pointing out that C:SM is a clear turning point and wasnlikely written when they were deciding that the game needed a 9th ed instead of a living ed.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Sorry, but no. New editions take more time than that. They always talk about new editions taking several years. The Chaos SM copypasta would have been happening alongside 9th edition rules.
Under the old way where rules teams worked on several systems at the same time that may be true, but we saw Sisters come out inside of a year when that used to take 18 months minimum in the past.
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
It wasn't even that though. It consolidated some of the rules from a single book released at the same time. It didn't even properly consolidate all the errata, nor the rules for the new units released in the coinciding boxset.
Not to mention the issue with Obliterators having different points costs and unit sizes depending on where you looked...
Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.
And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.
Books written at different times with difderent design goals.
If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.
CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.
Then release that codex when you drop the new edition not a year ahead of that and reduce the current edution to play this codex or GTFO with winning and spend the next six months unbreaking the game from your mistakes.
Nah. They instead decided to push out whatever they had playtested to continue releasing stuff that was ready to go via PA so armies could get updated while the new edition was bring worked on.
I'm not saying what they did was the best option, just pointing out that C:SM is a clear turning point and wasnlikely written when they were deciding that the game needed a 9th ed instead of a living ed..
I'm not sure why you think a 'living edition' was ever in the cards.
8th edition is looking more and more like a stopgap/ public playtest edition. The former to fill in with a deluge of books while they were refitting their factory, and the latter to deal with the mess they made trying to dig out of the 7th edition hole with new systems that they didn't take time to test in the office.
Under the old way where rules teams worked on several systems at the same time that may be true, but we saw Sisters come out inside of a year when that used to take 18 months minimum in the past.
What's this based on? Either old way/new way or anything to suggest that Sisters took less than a year.
It wasn't even that though. It consolidated some of the rules from a single book released at the same time. It didn't even properly consolidate all the errata, nor the rules for the new units released in the coinciding boxset.
Not to mention the issue with Obliterators having different points costs and unit sizes depending on where you looked...
I suspect it was written in 2017 before most of those updates occured because of that actually.
Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Now obviously they changed that design goal because GW is consistent on not doing what they say, unless its raise prices.
Many of us though wanted to believe them as we saw merit in 8th edition after the darkness that was 7th. I'd hope to believe many are much wiser now when it comes to listening to what GW claim at this point.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
Yeah, I'd like to see that myself. Sounds like a rending pony to me. They'd never claim anything like that. Anyone who's been around the hobby knows how GW operates and it's disingenuous to act otherwise.
That's great and all, but you're not the only person ever to use Battlescribe. I've had far too many people try to use Battlescribe as a codex and list checker to ever trust anyone at this point throwing a list my way from it.
But if they've just written their list down on a bit of paper that's fine, you'll accept that it's legal.
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...
Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.
Did you not read what I posted?
There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?
Hey, I got an even better idea for 9th edition. I call it "Army Points". First count the number of armies you're fielding. That's how many Army Points it costs! It's really fast for setting up pick-up games. But strangely enough it's not so good for ensuring balance. Kinda like Power Level.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...
Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.
Did you not read what I posted?
There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?
Hey, I got an even better idea for 9th edition. I call it "Army Points". First count the number of armies you're fielding. That's how many Army Points it costs! It's really fast for setting up pick-up games. But strangely enough it's not so good for ensuring balance. Kinda like Power Level.
Hey, up for a 1 point game? Sure! Let's play!
Not to but in, but, wasn't that the first attempt at the age of sigmar ? I hear that worked out amazing for them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Now obviously they changed that design goal because GW is consistent on not doing what they say, unless its raise prices.
Many of us though wanted to believe them as we saw merit in 8th edition after the darkness that was 7th. I'd hope to believe many are much wiser now when it comes to listening to what GW claim at this point.
Eh they always say this is last ultimate edition. Would need to be new to gw gamns or fool to believe it.
Under the old way where rules teams worked on several systems at the same time that may be true, but we saw Sisters come out inside of a year when that used to take 18 months minimum in the past.
Eh they announced sister work started spring 2018. Big box came november 2019 with real launch 2020 january. How that is inside a year? That is minimum 18 to big boxset, 20 months for real launch.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
I'm not going to 'make you' do anything. But don't tell me I'm a 'flat earther' because you won't provide evidence to support your extraordinary (and frankly ridiculous) claim. That's exactly backwards, you're the one with a theory in need of support.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
I'm not going to 'make you' do anything. But don't tell me I'm a 'flat earther' because you won't provide evidence to support your extraordinary (and frankly ridiculous) claim. That's exactly backwards, you're the one with a theory in need of support.
They said it, believe it or not the choice is yours.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
The only thing I remember is that GW said that they will do regular updates with CA and then the forums explodes with 'living edition' and 'no new editions' theories but GW never stated this. And I followed the news closely.
The only thing I remember is that GW said that they will do regular updates with CA and then the forums explodes with 'living edition' and 'no new editions' theories but GW never stated this. And I followed the news closely.
Ooh i got several responses for my post, including claiming i was paying no attention at all and that crusades were OPTIONAL.
maybe i wasn't clear enough.
I already knew that. I was just amused that over the last several months to maybe even a year I recall people claiming there was enough rules (specifically complaints about to many books), and im seeing excitement over this crusade system that is going to take up extra space in the rules documents, whether or not you want to use it. it makes me wonder if a codex price raise is coming or not for the extra pages to account for their addition as well, since they have said it will be in every codex.
It's not something ill likely be using either way on the basis ive played primarily blood bowl and mordheim variants, and unless they designed it really well with modern 40k lethality in mind, im not up to rolling whatever qualifies as an injury role every single game for whatever applies, because at this point overkill happens a lot from what i see.
Bdrone wrote: Ooh i got several responses for my post, including claiming i was paying no attention at all and that crusades were OPTIONAL.
maybe i wasn't clear enough.
I already knew that. I was just amused that over the last several months to maybe even a year I recall people claiming there was enough rules (specifically complaints about to many books), and im seeing excitement over this crusade system that is going to take up extra space in the rules documents, whether or not you want to use it. it makes me wonder if a codex price raise is coming or not for the extra pages to account for their addition as well, since they have said it will be in every codex.
It's not something ill likely be using either way on the basis ive played primarily blood bowl and mordheim variants, and unless they designed it really well with modern 40k lethality in mind, im not up to rolling whatever qualifies as an injury role every single game for whatever applies, because at this point overkill happens a lot from what i see.
Crusade exists becaude GW realized they didn't give any real tools to narrative and open play and they're correcting that. It's not like Path to Glory (AoS' escalation system) takes up more than a couple pages in a battletome, and this will likely be the same.
And no, AoS didn't up the cost of their books just because they put in a couple pages of escalation rules.
Crusade exists becaude GW realized they didn't give any real tools to narrative and open play and they're correcting that. It's not like Path to Glory (AoS' escalation system) takes up more than a couple pages in a battletome, and this will likely be the same.
And no, AoS didn't up the cost of their books just because they put in a couple pages of escalation rules.
My LGS hosts a new campaign every 3 months to try to draw more blood into the fold or allow people to start new armies small with very little cost/time investment.
The manager does a very good job with the campaign system as it currently stands but to have a more detailed/clearly laid out campaign system that also allows people with Crusade armies to play against anyone, even if there is PL imbalance is a good thing.
Some of the players specifically look for certain size games so no, not everybody wanting to play their 2k army will want to convert it to PL and play against someone who has a force 1/2 their size but some might.
In my LGS even the long term veterans pull out 500 pts of their collection of 1,000's or 10's of 1,000's of point (one SM player has 30K points of SM's of his own Chapter and 6k of Ultramarines). He's participated in every Escalation League campaign the past 5 years.
The thing is just taking a quick look at my top four(Ato Z)2000 pts lists. These are mainly competitive/semi competitive lists (one does include 3 wraithknigth though...)
These vary from 116 to 140 PL at 2000 pts... Please tell me how power level is balanced...when compared to pts... Its not balanced internally in the slightest.. so how is even remotely balanced against other armies.
Pts and PL just doesn't mesh. GW should have just dumped this idea but here we are..
If there is enough interest locally I will certainly do a "crusade" campaign but it will be only against people within the campaign. crusade vs matched play just seems like complete cluster buck..
Through 8th many points dropped.but PL where never adjusted. I assume that your lists will be closer to 100 PL after the first errata. But yeah, they are not ment to be 100% balanced.
Argive wrote: The thing is just taking a quick look at my top four(Ato Z)2000 pts lists. These are mainly competitive/semi competitive lists (one does include 3 wraithknigth though...)
These vary from 116 to 140 PL at 2000 pts... Please tell me how power level is balanced...when compared to pts... Its not balanced internally in the slightest.. so how is even remotely balanced against other armies.
Pts and PL just doesn't mesh. GW should have just dumped this idea but here we are..
If there is enough interest locally I will certainly do a "crusade" campaign but it will be only against people within the campaign. crusade vs matched play just seems like complete cluster buck..
We'll swap PL for PTS for the illusion of starting balance in Crusade (because basically we know pt vs pt, will never be balanced in 40k). But its better than PL.
After this, i think you might need to reassess what a system like this will be like after 5 games. Facing off against a match play list will be nothing compared to the disparity of what will likely be the case with special rules, buffs, debuffs etc for the Crusade armies. You are playing a narrative, and yes your army might totally suck and be underdogs in every game etc... thats kinda the point.
We play a lot of old school Necomunda at the minute. My gang got random slag territories when we started, so i get next to no income, i can't buy stuff. One of the guys gets about 3 times what i get a game and all his guys have sweet weapons. Before the lockdown we played a mission were I was not only outgunned but i had to start with less men than him! I won though some mad luck, clever tactics and it's been one of the best games played for me in a long while. Thats kinda the idea with Crusade i'd imagine. Your force develops a story around it. You imagine your gangers coming back to cheers for their victory, tempered by sadness when they relise they dont have the credits for food, maybe we'll attack their territory now they are weakened etc etc etc
That's great and all, but you're not the only person ever to use Battlescribe. I've had far too many people try to use Battlescribe as a codex and list checker to ever trust anyone at this point throwing a list my way from it.
But if they've just written their list down on a bit of paper that's fine, you'll accept that it's legal.
I imagine the dislike for Battlescribe is down to the fact it's not official and stops some people spending money with GW on codices etc.
Btw: I'm actually one of the people that does always buy my rules/books, but programs that let me print out my army list are damn useful.
All the wailing about Crusade seems misplaced. We don't know enough about it to condemn it out right, other than to say that PL, as a system, isn't particularly useful and this does seem like GW going "Now they'll like it!". No, we like points. Points make things easier. Just use points.
Kanluwen wrote: Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And has nothing to do with the quality of Battlescribe. That's a player problem.
Battlescribe isn't "trash" Kan. You're just pissed off that some people cheated.
Doing army lists on paper with a calculator is simply WAY too tedious these days. I have to trawl through like 3, sometimes 4, different books to find the points costs of everything, regularly referring back to the main book. It got real old real fast, and I was quite resistant to using battlescribe until maybe a yearish ago now.
Kanluwen wrote: Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.
You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.
What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.
Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...
Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.
And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.
And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.
PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.
Did you not read what I posted?
There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?
Hey, I got an even better idea for 9th edition. I call it "Army Points". First count the number of armies you're fielding. That's how many Army Points it costs! It's really fast for setting up pick-up games. But strangely enough it's not so good for ensuring balance. Kinda like Power Level.
Hey, up for a 1 point game? Sure! Let's play!
Power level isn't for the balanced competitive games. Its for more open games like campaigns or narrative missions where it allows different options without having to change up multiple different things just to free up those 10 points to fit a lascannon instead of a heavy bolter on a russ. It pairs pretty well with wyswyg as well- Sure a vehicle could have 8 different upgrades that are free in power level, but if they arent on the model, it doesnt have them.
I've said this in the beginning: Power Level only works on the new No Model/No Rules contents in the box approach to New GW style Unit design composition and rules writing.
Powerlevel matters when buying upgrades for your old marines. Not between different Primaris bolters. Or Las fusil vs Sniper. Or flamey Aggressors and Dakka Aggressors.
Genuinely curious if there are any of the most recent dual kit (or mono pose) boxes that have such a big swing in PL abuse?
TLDR Power Level works on 8th edition units only, due to limited builds.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I've said this in the beginning: Power Level only works on the new No Model/No Rules contents in the box approach to New GW style Unit design composition and rules writing.
Powerlevel matters when buying upgrades for your old marines. Not between different Primaris bolters. Or Las fusil vs Sniper. Or flamey Aggressors and Dakka Aggressors.
Genuinely curious if there are any of the most recent dual kit (or mono pose) boxes that have such a big swing in PL abuse?
TLDR Power Level works on 8th edition units only, due to limited builds.
The Repulsor has a pretty big swing with the upgrades. Plasma vs. Bolter inceptors.
It’s not Deathwatch vet swingy, and I in generally agree with you. But there are some examples.
In an ideal power level world a flamer, melta guns, and plasma gun would all be good at their job and cost the same. What to take would depend on what role you wanted to fill, not point efficiency. Never going to happen, but I like the theory.
Nevelon wrote: In an ideal power level world a flamer, melta guns, and plasma gun would all be good at their job and cost the same. What to take would depend on what role you wanted to fill, not point efficiency. Never going to happen, but I like the theory.
If only there was some sort of, I dunno, "points" system for balancing the relative efficacy of different units and weapons that we could use to replace the more blanket and obtuse PL system...
Let me tell you.. as an opponent you will have a totally different game if im running 6 squads of storm guardians with expert crafters and 2 fusion guns in each squad as oppsed to 6 squads with nothing.. If I don't have to worry about paying additional 100pts+ for those upgrades... have fun lol
Nevelon wrote: In an ideal power level world a flamer, melta guns, and plasma gun would all be good at their job and cost the same. What to take would depend on what role you wanted to fill, not point efficiency. Never going to happen, but I like the theory.
If only there was some sort of, I dunno, "points" system for balancing the relative efficacy of different units and weapons that we could use to replace the more blanket and obtuse PL system...
I don't know how that'd work though.
Heh, I know.
I prefer points.
But if we want to have a game where Power Level is how things work, all the upgrades should be lateral shifts. Like the Intercessor guns. Short range/high ROF, Long range, low ROF, or middle, jack of all trades. All are valid choices, and roughly equal. Obviously, some work better in some metas, or with other tricks, etc. But close enough to be a wash.
Or like in 5th, when a full tac squad got a MM/HB/ML for free. What do you want the squad to do? Take the right tool.
At this point with all the bloat, it would require a massive rework to make happen, Just too many options out there to balance them all, and still be unique. The fact that you can have some just be more expensive then others gives you more design space to work in.
Honestly, the deathwatch vet situation is not a problem at all. Crusade is for narrative games, that means people who love the ultra competitive are probably not interested. However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative. Salamanders dude is getting that hvy flamer, cuz fire. Dark Angels fella...plasma pistol and power sword. This is how narrative gamers think, so don't worry about Crusade...all you hard core, points efficient competitive types can stick to points for more balanced play. It's really not an issue.
However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative.
it's also intreasting, modeling all your minis the exact same is kiiinda dull
Neither of which really defeat the argument that the PL system isn't necessary given that the points system already exists. It doesn't matter if you play casually, narratively, competitively or even figuratively. There's no good reason to have two different points system. It adds nothing to the game.
Accurate points benefits every kind of player. It's not much fun when a narrative encounter which should be compelling is just a slaughter one way or the other.
Storytelling is far more difficult if bad rules are full of landmines that undermine the narrative.
I'm glad 9th will be continuing with PL. It's all my group really uses.
We also don't pre build lists. We bring a selection of models and then once we figure out the game size, grab things to field until we hit the PL of the game. I don't think we typically transport any more than a tournament player might do for an event. We probably play a lot of 50-75 PL though even if we are bringing 100 PL to the club (when we had regular club events :( )
We have never had a broken game doing things this way, but no one is tuning their lists, so that's probably the real source of our good gaming.
I'm looking forward to Crusade. Those type of growing leagues end up producing a lot of painting progress in my experience.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
The only thing I remember is that GW said that they will do regular updates with CA and then the forums explodes with 'living edition' and 'no new editions' theories but GW never stated this. And I followed the news closely.
If you're going to war, do you want to have an unoptimized loadout?
define poorly built?
You are still thinking about optimization...again, not exactly in the narrative mindset. A kill-team should probably have a loadout to handle a multitude of threats if going by the fluff.
Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with that...and I have 3 sqds of Stormbolter/stormshield vets that agree. But at the other end of that box I have some close combat vets, combi-weapon vets, etc. They'd like to play too, and this is where they get to do that...because the goal is to have a fun, narrative game...not find th emost awesome wombo/combo, points efficient unit you can field.
stratigo wrote: Doing army lists on paper with a calculator is simply WAY too tedious these days. I have to trawl through like 3, sometimes 4, different books to find the points costs of everything, regularly referring back to the main book. It got real old real fast, and I was quite resistant to using battlescribe until maybe a yearish ago now.
What kind of soup you need? Chapter approved and what pa books with new point values in this year you need?
If you're going to war, do you want to have an unoptimized loadout?
Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.
p5freak wrote: Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.
And a points system stops you from doing this... how?
p5freak wrote: Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.
And a points system stops you from doing this... how?
You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer
AngryAngel80 wrote: Because they directly said a living edition ? That the last edition was the end of editions and all of these things like chapter approved, constant FAQs and Point revisions/erratas were to make it un needed to have the constant edition churns of old.
Citation please. I've seen a lot of 'GW said' claims over the years, and it usually turns out to be 'someone on a message board said GW said'
I definitely don't remember the 'end of editions' bit, and regular updates and adjustments aren't really the same as a true living edition.
I'm not going back to their own words from years prior to try and fish that out. Just for it to become a " Well they said that but its not what they meant " argument. You want to believe they didn't say it, that's fine, the worlds both flat and hollow as well. However they said it, it was there, right around the same time they said bloat killed 7th and they would avoid that and here we are in hog heaven once more. Oh but they never said that either. They sure do say a lot that no one remembers. If only we all had the memory of that place that makes all of them cookies.
No, no. If you're going to make extraordinary claims - and 'no new editions' is very extraordinary for a company whose primary business cycle is new editions - you need to definitively prove it, not demur and just claim that other people will deny evidence that you don't provide.
I know I'm not the only one to remember this, you're not beholden to believe me and if anyone else wants to waste their time they are free to pitch in with this battle. I know it was there because I thought " Hey, this could be a good thing " I remember those things because I wanted to believe in their " New GW " thing.
Though as someone said, it was foolish to believe them as I should have just looked at their past, bad on me for that I agree. Though please, feel free to try and make me waste my time I'd love to hear how me doing it to prove myself correct will in any way be worthwhile.
I'm not going to 'make you' do anything. But don't tell me I'm a 'flat earther' because you won't provide evidence to support your extraordinary (and frankly ridiculous) claim. That's exactly backwards, you're the one with a theory in need of support.
They said it, believe it or not the choice is yours.
p5freak wrote: You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer
Preaching to the choir here.
PL is just another level of "points" that is ineffective, inaccurate, inbalanced, and infun. I may have made two of those words up.
It does nothing that the actual points system does already, and the existing points system is inherently more representative of comparative "power". Power Level, as an entire system, is utterly redundant.
p5freak wrote: Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.
And a points system stops you from doing this... how?
You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer
Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.
Yes points would allow them to have a more balanced experience in the traditional extent, but if your main drive is quick go lucky narrative fun, then PL has a place.
Honestly, the changes for this new edition have gotten me to finally start the Black Templar Crusade I've been on the fence about since 5th edition. I am also looking forward to playing crusade so I can have a story about my Crusade's Marshall (plan to use the Captain out of the new starter, assuming that the one with the skeleton on his shield is a captian and not a second LT model).
Basically the new edition has me on the hype train, something I've managed to stay off of since the 5th edition Sisters of Battle update ended up being two White Dwarf articles.
If you all hate PL so much and are disappointed Crusade uses that system, I'm sure it will be a super simple conversion to just change anything PL-related to points. So long as it is uniform for all players, there should not be much of an issue.
Raulengrin wrote: If you all hate PL so much and are disappointed Crusade uses that system, I'm sure it will be a super simple conversion to just change anything PL-related to points. So long as it is uniform for all players, there should not be much of an issue.
p5freak wrote: When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer
that is the point of PL, that you stop worring about min/max of points and just build and use the models as you like them
one weapon is better in damage per points as another one, with PL it does not matter
if you play your models naked because you just need cheap chaff in matched play instead of the cool looking ones with combi/special weapons, your choice but with PL they are the same no matter if naked and not, allowing you to build what you think looks cool without needing to care
Dudeface wrote: Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.
Yes points would allow them to have a more balanced experience in the traditional extent, but if your main drive is quick go lucky narrative fun, then PL has a place.
When we have had PL used balance has been pretty much same. Nobody starts converting every upgrade for sake of PL game so that deals with most of the silly hyperbole experiences.
What it does is encourage using less commonly seen upgrades that aren't worth it usually which ergo wouldn't be balanced in points anyway(as spending points on that would be waste and shooting self on foot)
Raulengrin wrote: If you all hate PL so much and are disappointed Crusade uses that system, I'm sure it will be a super simple conversion to just change anything PL-related to points. So long as it is uniform for all players, there should not be much of an issue.
That’s my plan. Use points for the army lists and if there are any externalities they offer with PL costing, I’ll convert it to points.
p5freak wrote: Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.
And a points system stops you from doing this... how?
You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer
Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.
Yes points would allow them to have a more balanced experience in the traditional extent, but if your main drive is quick go lucky narrative fun, then PL has a place.
Except GW is now trying to say that the two systems are balanced enough that you can use your crusade force (in PL) against a match play army in Points. That seems totally at odds with the point of creating two systems in the first place as they aren't going to be balanced.
Also if 50 PL =500 points then 1 PL = 10 points that would certainly imply that gone will be the days of feee weapon choice as they will all have different PL costs at which point what is the point of PL over points if you still have to add PL for gear?
However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative.
it's also intreasting, modeling all your minis the exact same is kiiinda dull
Neither of which really defeat the argument that the PL system isn't necessary given that the points system already exists. It doesn't matter if you play casually, narratively, competitively or even figuratively. There's no good reason to have two different points system. It adds nothing to the game.
Provided all players are acting in good faith it adds to ability to evaluate a slightly more abstracted relative effectiveness of two forces, while not getting bogged down in the details.
A small amount of imbalance gets drowned out by scenario, terrain, and player strategy so long as no one is making force decisions based purely on out of narrative statistical reasoning.
Just, because you can't think outside the box of constructed play doesn't make PL useless. But let me give you an example to illustrate what I mean.
Say you are playing a small narrative campaign. All players are told to assemble 300PL of bare units (basic equipment as described in the unit card) and are allowed to apply 1d3+4 individual upgrades to any units within their force (a single unit can be chosen multiple times).
They then pick 100PL to deploy in their first game with a description of the objectives and terrain. They still do not know what their opponent will be. This 100PL force must be run for the next two games without changes, and any downed models will be rolled for at the end of each match to determine if they wounded, out-of-action, or killed. Prior to game 4 can you sub out units and also gain one additional upgrade of your choice before continuing for another 3 games and determining a winner based on objective completion.
Please explain how points makes this system better?
Also I want to make something perfectly clear, I couldn't care less if you think the above is overly convoluted, house rules-y, or restrictive. I don't care if you never have played a campaign like this, don't want to play a campaign like this, or never will.
But you are trying to claim that PL, a completely extra system that you can choose to simply ignore, shouldn't exist so unless you can explain why the way you play is objectively better than how I play. Well you can go take a pleasure cruise thought the warp.
JNAProductions wrote:Also, why should Narrative=Poorly Built?
If you're going to war, do you want to have an unoptimized loadout?
Because wars are never fought with perfectly balanced forces, rarely with the best equipment in existence, or even always with the right equipment for the specific conflict.
This goes doubly so when many wargear items are difficult to replace, costly to manufacture or priceless relics...
Honestly I don't get why people are getting bent out of shape about the PL. It's not like Narrative Players haven't spent most of the last 3 years using points anyways.
PL isn't a horrible system in concept, but unfortunately I don't trust people to not game a system if given half a chance. If they update PL to adjust based on wargear (say +1 PL if your tactical squad takes a special weapon for example) then sure, but as is it can get pretty lopsided.
Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.
p5freak wrote: Because its narrative fun when my army is only half as strong as your army. My dudes run around with flashlights and cant kill anything, and your dudes run around with meltas, killing my vehicles.
And a points system stops you from doing this... how?
You can do balanced and unbalanced with a point system as well. But you cant do balanced with PL. Its impossible to put the power of one unit with 13 possible weapon upgrades in one number. But thats what PL does, and it doesnt work. Two company veterans with boltgun/chansword are PL3. Now add a third company veteran with the same weapons. Now they are PL8. An increase of almost 200% ! Now compare those three vets to a dread with CCW/stormbolter and assault cannon which is PL5. When we add combi meltas and thunderhammers to those vets they are still PL8. Boltgun/chainsword is as powerful as combi melta and thunderhammer
Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.
Yes points would allow them to have a more balanced experience in the traditional extent, but if your main drive is quick go lucky narrative fun, then PL has a place.
Except GW is now trying to say that the two systems are balanced enough that you can use your crusade force (in PL) against a match play army in Points. That seems totally at odds with the point of creating two systems in the first place as they aren't going to be balanced.
Also if 50 PL =500 points then 1 PL = 10 points that would certainly imply that gone will be the days of feee weapon choice as they will all have different PL costs at which point what is the point of PL over points if you still have to add PL for gear?
25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much. They're saying a crusade army can be balanced against a match play army, that's an army where half of it have more special rules and or gear than the marched play equivalent.
We dont know enough of the veteran methods to know how that stacks up, but unless you're playing die hard tourney lists the armies shouldnt be that far removed you cant have a game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.
I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.
But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.
However, the Deathwatch player is not going to optimize every vet, he's going to add variety....because that's the narrative.
it's also intreasting, modeling all your minis the exact same is kiiinda dull
Neither of which really defeat the argument that the PL system isn't necessary given that the points system already exists. It doesn't matter if you play casually, narratively, competitively or even figuratively. There's no good reason to have two different points system. It adds nothing to the game.
Since people are using it you are by default proven wrong(hardly surprise)
Because wars are never fought with perfectly balanced forces, rarely with the best equipment in existence, or even always with the right equipment for the specific conflict.
This goes doubly so when many wargear items are difficult to replace, costly to manufacture or priceless relics...
Honestly, this. Power Level is just another, simpler way to build your army, that's all.
Yes, you can optimize the lists with Power Level. Same with points system. The method is simply different. It's all in the player's mindset, in the end.
That doesn't mean you can't have interesting games in Narrative Play with Power Level, nor that narrative players don't play to win. They just add the narrative part into the equation, not just mindlessly spamming the best units in their army list because they can.
And anyway, that Crusade system really sounds like it doesn't matter that much in the end. I feel like it's more about another way to build your collection than anything else. Sure, you can give a few toys to your units, but they'll have to suffer the wounds as well.
To be honest, I'm waiting to know more - I'm not that hyped so far.
25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.
3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.
3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
And anyway, that Crusade system really sounds like it doesn't matter that much in the end. I feel like it's more about another way to build your collection than anything else. Sure, you can give a few toys to your units, but they'll have to suffer the wounds as well..
Eh if it was just adding toys with no drawack it would be building up collection for sure.
25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.
3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
Given the power level for 5 dudes is the same as 3, you're being obtuse by taking less dudes than you can for the amount you've paid. If you then work out the mean for that unit of 5 it happens to be 472.5, which is weirdly nearly 500. Almost like it's intended to represent a unit that hasn't been min/maxed or exists somewhere in the mid ground.
If you then work out the mean for that unit of 5 it happens to be 472.5, which is weirdly nearly 500. Almost like it's intended to represent a unit that hasn't been min/maxed or exists somewhere in the mid ground.
Wow, one combination of dozens works out, which proves that 25L = 500 pts. ??
25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.
3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
Which just shows that the point system is broken.
And in practice who has all those thunderhammer/combi melta death companies?
As I said above. Hyperbole exaggeration. Those making claims like that are just net crying and haven't actually tried it in practice.
If you then work out the mean for that unit of 5 it happens to be 472.5, which is weirdly nearly 500. Almost like it's intended to represent a unit that hasn't been min/maxed or exists somewhere in the mid ground.
Wow, one combination of dozens works out, which proves that 25L = 500 pts. ??
Please, find me an example where the rough 25 = 500 points doesn't work out for the mean value of the units min & max points. Or admit it's irrelevant since you don't care and let others get on with doing what they like.
Jack Flask wrote: Provided all players are acting in good faith it adds to ability to evaluate a slightly more abstracted relative effectiveness of two forces, while not getting bogged down in the details.
But why bother? Building a list with points isn't getting 'bogged down in the details'. It's just playing the game, and it's been that way since 2nd Ed. Or even RT, eventually, come to think of it, as that had points as well.
Jack Flask wrote: A small amount of imbalance gets drowned out by scenario, terrain, and player strategy so long as no one is making force decisions based purely on out of narrative statistical reasoning.
You mean you cannot make narrative choices with points? That's daffy.
Jack Flask wrote: Just, because you can't think outside the box of constructed play doesn't make PL useless.
I'd be careful with those accusations there ol' Jacky boy. And I didn't say PL was useless, I said it was redundant. A second tier system that achieves a similar result to regular points but with less balance. Again, why bother?
Jack Flask wrote: Say you are playing a small narrative campaign. All players are told to assemble 300PL of bare units (basic equipment as described in the unit card) and are allowed to apply 1d3+4 individual upgrades to any units within their force (a single unit can be chosen multiple times).
And this would be impossible with regular points because... ? And as for 1d3+4 upgrades, now you're just making up rules. That's not part of the PL system. You've just bolted that on yourself. Your example fails before it even starts as you're not comparing points vs PL. You're comparing points vs PL + some other stuff I just made up.
Jack Flask wrote: They then pick 100PL to deploy in their first game with a description of the objectives and terrain. They still do not know what their opponent will be.
All things that can (and do) happen with points. So far PL has not been necessary one iota for your example to function.
Jack Flask wrote: This 100PL force must be run for the next two games without changes, and any downed models will be rolled for at the end of each match to determine if they wounded, out-of-action, or killed.
Ok, and? How would this be any worse off with points? It'd be more balanced to start with, that's for damned sure, and if there are campaign rules for deaths/injuries and whatnot, then that still would function under points.
Jack Flask wrote: Prior to game 4 can you sub out units and also gain one additional upgrade of your choice before continuing for another 3 games and determining a winner based on objective completion.
And again we're back to this adding upgrades thing which you made up, and has no bearing on the comparison between points and PL.
Jack Flask wrote: Please explain how points makes this system better?
You'd have to prove your point first. That there is some inherent advantage to PL or something PL can do that you cannot already do more accurately with the points system.
Jack Flask wrote: But you are trying to claim that PL, a completely extra system that you can choose to simply ignore, shouldn't exist so unless you can explain why the way you play is objectively better than how I play.
Your method serves no adequate purpose to justify its continued existence. PL does nothing that points don't already do more accurately. Or, to put it another way, everything PL can do points can do better. Your cassette player might play old tapes just fine, but it's unnecessary when there are far better and higher quality ways to play music.
Jack Flask wrote: Well you can go take a pleasure cruise thought the warp.
Thanks for not making this personal...
tneva82 wrote: Since people are using it you are by default proven wrong(hardly surprise)
You're not very good at cohesive or coherent arguments, so... I'll leave you alone. It'll be easier on both of us.
Never been a fan of Power levels due to the imbalance possibilities that have already been mentioned. Even playing friendly games I'd prefer to know that we have paid the same points and all upgrades have been costed (wonky points costs of some units/upgrades not withstanding). I'm in no way a WAAC player and I take a lot of sub par units cos I like the fluff or the models.
Again as previously mentioned Power Level is only works if the various unit options are roughly equivalent, which I fear can only lead to blander or more overtly "rock, scissors, paper" type options. Trading off where to spend your points and which units to invest in with upgrades and which not is part of the fun of putting together a list
Could also be I prefer playing points as that's what I've used since 2nd.
I'm just disappointed that the Campaign System, which is something I was looking fwd to, has been built around a costing system I, and none of the players I know or speak to use (YMMV)
Can you please let the damn power level versus points matter drop already? This is the 9 edition thread and nobody cares to hear you go back and forth for 5 pages about it, use whatever you like better.
And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...
And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.
There will always be disparity between PL and points because PL simplifies the whole structure considerably whilst points allows for far more fine-tuning (in theory) of balance. OF course GW's balance has been questionable for years so at a functional level if they adjusted PL and Points along the way the disparity between the two might not be vastly different to the power disparities within the systems.
Ergo it could work and GW is clearly aiming to try and bring the two groups together. I'd question the need for the two groups in the first place.
That said nothing stops you spending 5 mins converting your army form points to pl or from pl to points and adjusting a few elements to make it work.
Overread wrote: There will always be disparity between PL and points because PL simplifies the whole structure considerably whilst points allows for far more fine-tuning (in theory) of balance. OF course GW's balance has been questionable for years so at a functional level if they adjusted PL and Points along the way the disparity between the two might not be vastly different to the power disparities within the systems.
Ergo it could work and GW is clearly aiming to try and bring the two groups together. I'd question the need for the two groups in the first place.
That said nothing stops you spending 5 mins converting your army form points to pl or from pl to points and adjusting a few elements to make it work.
This hits the nail on the head. There's little point arguing about how inaccurate, useless or trashy PL is, it's as useful as the people using it deem it to be. Don't like it then don't use it and roll around enjoying your theoretically easy wins against narrative players if you're playing them with a tourney list.
I know they never refined the PL previously (apparently because they realised printing them on the build instructions was great for newbies but made it impossible to manage) but I'm hoping with 9th they'll actually update them digitally as they go to keep it as relevant as it can be.
Jack Flask wrote: Provided all players are acting in good faith it adds to ability to evaluate a slightly more abstracted relative effectiveness of two forces, while not getting bogged down in the details.
But why bother? Building a list with points isn't getting 'bogged down in the details'. It's just playing the game, and it's been that way since 2nd Ed. Or even RT, eventually, come to think of it, as that had points as well.
Yeah, it's just a matter of habit. I played both, I can't deny Power Level is simpler and faster to use to build your list. Because you don't go to the same level of details as points.
Mind you, either way you won't have a game perfectly balanced. So why bother going that far in details for no big gain ? That's the reasoning of those using Power Level. And since the narrative players build their lists according to the narrative of the scenario, it's good enough of a tool to do the trick. Less time counting the points and more time to play.
And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...
And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.
Because GW is saying armies constructed under both systems will be interchangeable without balance issues, yeah pull the other one.
Because they keep trying to promote/force it as a good enough way to play the game. It happened for all of 8th and now they are making you pay for additional content (Crusade) that's says you should use an inferior version (PL) of a system your already paying for in the books (point's).
If anything a proportion of the comunity wants more granularity in points not this wierd obsession GW has with trying to simply a system that is already struggling to differentiate between 2,3&4 point models, if that was 4,6&8 their is intermediate steps GW is trying to say 20, 40, 60 is ok levels of abstraction.
And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...
And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.
Because GW is saying armies constructed under both systems will be interchangeable without balance issues, yeah pull the other one.
Because they keep trying to promote/force it as a good enough way to play the game. It happened for all of 8th and now they are making you pay for additional content (Crusade) that's says you should use an inferior version (PL) of a system your already paying for in the books (point's).
If anything a proportion of the comunity wants more granularity in points not this wierd obsession GW has with trying to simply a system that is already struggling to differentiate between 2,3&4 point models, if that was 4,6&8 their is intermediate steps GW is trying to say 20, 40, 60 is ok levels of abstraction.
Please quote where they say they're charging you extra for crusade content. Please show me where you're forced to play in power level. Again please show me where it says you can't talk to the other player and say you only want to play matched points.
Yeah, the argument about PL imbalance can be a complete moot point when it comes to choosing a game.
If your opponent asks to play PL's, take a glance at the list, if they are looking like they are trying to game the system then by all means, ask to play points instead.
The only people who will play with PL AND do it to their complete advantage are WAAC players, and at that point, just refuse the game and call them out on their BS whilst refusing.
Anyway, like has been said above the argument at the moment is moot, as PL's are going to change (and I think it is logical to assume, upgrades are taken into account). Additionally, some of the play testers we have been praising have been playing crusade, which means they have done it will PL's... And they say it is great, so everyone calm down and lets wait and see.
You at this point are trying to theory hammer whilst quite literally not knowing all the facts and figures. A lot of you seem stressed, go out for a walk in the real world or something...
And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...
And i believe the many pages of you guys going in circles about PL/points are enough especially considering they also said they were reworking PL so you don’t have information about them.
Because GW is saying armies constructed under both systems will be interchangeable without balance issues, yeah pull the other one.
Because they keep trying to promote/force it as a good enough way to play the game. It happened for all of 8th and now they are making you pay for additional content (Crusade) that's says you should use an inferior version (PL) of a system your already paying for in the books (point's).
If anything a proportion of the comunity wants more granularity in points not this wierd obsession GW has with trying to simply a system that is already struggling to differentiate between 2,3&4 point models, if that was 4,6&8 their is intermediate steps GW is trying to say 20, 40, 60 is ok levels of abstraction.
Please quote where they say they're charging you extra for crusade content. Please show me where you're forced to play in power level. Again please show me where it says you can't talk to the other player and say you only want to play matched points.
I think the problem people are getting at, is this idea that you can play Crusade even without the other player using the Crusade system doesn't actually seem to be the case. The example given on the stream said the non-Crusade player would convert their army to PL, then probably get some bonus CPs to compensate for their lack of Battle Honours, which isn't exactly what I thought of when they initially announced Crusade as something you could integrate into your regular games without any problems. Advocates of PL always point to the fact that if you're using PL you've kind of already agreed to a certain type of experience, which is fine and I totally get that. But now GW are talking about mixing points and PL and the result just doesn't seem to match up to the initial statement they made. The example they gave on stream was even worse. They're talking about someone playing a Crusade army and someone looking to practice for an event coming together to...basically play Crusade. That doesn't seem too likely to me because it's too much like a narrative-focussed player who uses PL asking a tournament player to play a narrative-style game using PL. It just seems a little bit divorced from reality. The fact there's a bit more of a structured system to do it will probably help but I don't really see it being anywhere near as common as GW initially implied.
BaconCatBug wrote: If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.
I flatly disagree. Extremes aren't what systems are designed for. If they were they wouldn't be called "extremes".
No game has perfect balance. No game survives being gamed by players. No game survives bad faith and attempts to WAAC.
Trying to argue otherwise is nothing more than a bad faith arguement for internet points.
And as I said at least a page ago, I am willing to bet there will be plenty of people using points over PL for Crusade when it drops. I say this because many narrative players are still using points over PL and did so all through 8th. Which basically makes it moot for all but the edge cases where people don't try to meet their opponents halfway. And I don"t know anyone who enjoys playing with someone so far up their own backside they won't try and work with their opponent to have a fun game.
PL and points will likely be balanced when 9th launches since both are getting updated to match the new system. It doesn't mean they'll stay balanced, but we do know GW will be addressing PL more often (my guess is yearly) to try and keep the two more closely in line.
Hopefully the new PL updates will be a bit more granular, but I won't hold my breath since GW has never been especially quick about ironing out all of the bugs on new mechanics.
That all said, until we know more all this arguing about PL vs Points is meaningless since no one knows what either of those looks like until GW does their update when 9th drops.
BaconCatBug wrote: Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.
They still don't solve the problem at the root.
It's only bothering those with the mindset leading to the said extremes, in the end. At some point, we have to ask the true question : is that really worth it to bother the majority just to satisfy a small minority that will always cause trouble anyway ?
To me, the answer is clear ; it's not. Power Level is fine. And if someone wants to abuse it just to "prove" something, just make him understand he won't play at all if he keeps that toxic mindset, or let him play with his group of friends with the same mindset.
Thing is, people arguing for only one way to build your list - the point system - aren't really concerned with balance. They just want everyone to play their way, so that they don't have to adapt to another. It's really just a matter of habit.
Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).
And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.
sieGermans wrote: Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).
And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.
Exactly. Not to mention the number of times MtG has banned or restricted cards because of unforeseen combos that break the game.
No system is perfect. No system can be perfect. Complaining that a system isn't perfect isn't a valid argument, it's a cry for attention.
BaconCatBug wrote: If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.
On that logic every game in the world has bad system. We are all doomed.
Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.
There are most certainly aspects of warhammer 40k that are not typical in other systems and that allow for these extremes.
For example, Deathwatch Veterans with their wildly variant wargear and customization are much more difficult to balance than Intercessors, with their totally fixed loadout. In most games with better inter-unit balance than 40k that I've played, you cannot choose to change individual models' wargear or if you can, you cannot do it nearly as much. This tends to greatly reduce the burden of what you have to balance on the designers.
In my experience, that customization tends to be a selling point for 40k and people tend to complain when that is taken away from them. Not everything that produces better balance is going to be universally popular with current fans of 40k.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I for one want the customization that has been lost back. (Stares wistfully at csm 3.5 codex).
I do too. Personally, I find that in other games that are more balanced, I get bored of them much faster. Once I've played against a particular faction, I've probably experienced pretty much what that faction is bringing to the table.
The fact that 40k has 20-odd different factions with pretty extensive unit customization is somthing that will make the balance far worse than it would otherwise be. I would not want to reduce that, though. I'm OK with the imbalance that brings not because I like the imbalance, but I understand it comes with the benefit of variability.
That's probably why I tend to play Necromunda over Infinity or Malifaux when it comes to skirmish gaming if I have the choice. It is objectively a FAR less balanced game, by several orders of magnitude, but the possibilities of what you can bring in your gang is pretty much endless.
BaconCatBug wrote: Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.
They still don't solve the problem at the root.
It's only bothering those with the mindset leading to the said extremes, in the end. At some point, we have to ask the true question : is that really worth it to bother the majority just to satisfy a small minority that will always cause trouble anyway ?
To me, the answer is clear ; it's not. Power Level is fine. And if someone wants to abuse it just to "prove" something, just make him understand he won't play at all if he keeps that toxic mindset, or let him play with his group of friends with the same mindset.
Thing is, people arguing for only one way to build your list - the point system - aren't really concerned with balance. They just want everyone to play their way, so that they don't have to adapt to another. It's really just a matter of habit.
So please explain why if PL is fine the 5 2000 point lists currently to hand have a spread of 20 PL and all 5 are over 100PL.
Because it's a simplified points system looking for a role.
Also if Crusade is PL and supposed to be playable with everyone including matched play as GW said and matched play is points are we suddenly needing to convert points to PL, thats a flat out admission that PL doesn't balance against points.
So crusade is not a for everyone compatible with everyone else way to play like the said it's more content that's now stuck behind a paywall of you have to accept PL levels of imbalances in your games.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I don't get why people are getting bent out of shape about the PL. It's not like Narrative Players haven't spent most of the last 3 years using points anyways.
PL isn't a horrible system in concept, but unfortunately I don't trust people to not game a system if given half a chance. If they update PL to adjust based on wargear (say +1 PL if your tactical squad takes a special weapon for example) then sure, but as is it can get pretty lopsided.
I love campaign systems and dislike power level. So I am personally somewhat miffed they are pushing my campaign system to use PL, and worried they will do something to make PL integral to the system in a way you can't easily untangle it.
25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.
3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
Which just shows that the point system is broken.
No, it isn't.
Look, the game designers DID NOT make their rules with the idea of powerlevel in mind. It's, essentially, something parasitically borrowed from AoS, and it doesn't work amazing in AoS either with everyone literally just taking the best equipment they can (And then GW changing what amount they are allowed to take, screwing over the large amount of people who have converted or sourced bits to have a better unit), but the swings in AoS aren't nearly as dramatic as many units in 40k, because 40k had not, and has really never, been made with the idea of power level in mind.
25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.
3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
Which just shows that the point system is broken.
And in practice who has all those thunderhammer/combi melta death companies?
As I said above. Hyperbole exaggeration. Those making claims like that are just net crying and haven't actually tried it in practice.
Truthfully? Quite a number of older marine players do.
sieGermans wrote: Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).
And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.
Exactly. Not to mention the number of times MtG has banned or restricted cards because of unforeseen combos that break the game.
No system is perfect. No system can be perfect. Complaining that a system isn't perfect isn't a valid argument, it's a cry for attention.
And you know the system that GW set and then never once adjusted through the entirety of 8th? Power level. With points they did their best (whatever you think of their best) to fix issues. With power level they dumped it out and then, pretty much, abandoned the concept.
BaconCatBug wrote: Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.
They still don't solve the problem at the root.
It's only bothering those with the mindset leading to the said extremes, in the end. At some point, we have to ask the true question : is that really worth it to bother the majority just to satisfy a small minority that will always cause trouble anyway ?
To me, the answer is clear ; it's not. Power Level is fine. And if someone wants to abuse it just to "prove" something, just make him understand he won't play at all if he keeps that toxic mindset, or let him play with his group of friends with the same mindset.
Thing is, people arguing for only one way to build your list - the point system - aren't really concerned with balance. They just want everyone to play their way, so that they don't have to adapt to another. It's really just a matter of habit.
So please explain why if PL is fine the 5 2000 point lists currently to hand have a spread of 20 PL and all 5 are over 100PL.
Because it's a simplified points system looking for a role.
Also if Crusade is PL and supposed to be playable with everyone including matched play as GW said and matched play is points are we suddenly needing to convert points to PL, thats a flat out admission that PL doesn't balance against points.
No arguement FOR -or- AGAINST PL can truly be made until we see what 9th actually does with it, so just drop it or go argue about it in the general 40k section instead of filling a dozen more pages with it instead of news. I don't want to have to comb through more bickering while I'm trying to see if anything actually came out that I missed.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I don't get why people are getting bent out of shape about the PL. It's not like Narrative Players haven't spent most of the last 3 years using points anyways.
PL isn't a horrible system in concept, but unfortunately I don't trust people to not game a system if given half a chance. If they update PL to adjust based on wargear (say +1 PL if your tactical squad takes a special weapon for example) then sure, but as is it can get pretty lopsided.
I love campaign systems and dislike power level. So I am personally somewhat miffed they are pushing my campaign system to use PL, and worried they will do something to make PL integral to the system in a way you can't easily untangle it.
We don't know that for sure until we see the rules, so stow the complaints until we know exactly how it works. All your doing is wasting time being mad about something you could be wrong about.
sieGermans wrote: Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).
And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.
Exactly. Not to mention the number of times MtG has banned or restricted cards because of unforeseen combos that break the game.
No system is perfect. No system can be perfect. Complaining that a system isn't perfect isn't a valid argument, it's a cry for attention.
And you know the system that GW set and then never once adjusted through the entirety of 8th? Power level. With points they did their best (whatever you think of their best) to fix issues. With power level they dumped it out and then, pretty much, abandoned the concept.
You know what system GW admitted to dropping the ball on and said they'd be addressing more often to try and prevent it from being so badly imbalanced? Power level. GW basically overly focused on matched play for 8th and left narrative as a vestigial limb that looked like it was going to fall off (and the less said about open play the better).
We don't know what 9th looks like in whole, but judging it on what 8th currently exists as is a falacy. There are not the same system. Similar perhaps, but not the same.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.
I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.
But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.
It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.
I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.
But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.
It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.
You say that like you have proof they didn't focus on other things. Which there is none. Fixing narrative doesn't mean they didn't fix other parts of the game, meaning the gripe-a-thon that has been going on is just as meaningless as it was before you presented this defense.
The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.
Crusade as a concept Crsuade forcing you to use PL
Ice_can wrote: The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.
Crusade as a concept Crsuade forcing you to use PL
Crusade isn't "forcing" you to use PL. As has been mentioned many times, people are going to likely use points anyways just to smooth out pick up games.
Ice_can wrote: The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.
Crusade as a concept Crsuade forcing you to use PL
Crusade isn't "forcing" you to use PL. As has been mentioned many times, people are going to likely use points anyways just to smooth out pick up games.
Crusade IS pushing you to use PL and not using it is people modifying the ruleset, which is, ideally, not something that should be done. The ease of subbing out point for PL is unknown, and that, too is a source of anxiety. I can only hope its easy, but fear it is not.
Ice_can wrote: The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.
Crusade as a concept Crsuade forcing you to use PL
Crusade isn't "forcing" you to use PL. As has been mentioned many times, people are going to likely use points anyways just to smooth out pick up games.
I don't know if it will be that straight forward though. From reading the info given out, I get the impression that many of the advancement and RP generation/use will be codified to PL and not points. To truly benefit from the Crusade system you will then need a reliable way to convert PL to Pts. You could, of course, work in Pts and then just convert the army into a PL value afterwards but as I understand it, the two are not balanced against one another and armies that may be point efficient are not always the same when looked at from a PL perspective and vice-versa. Reaching a consensus, even within local friendly gaming groups as to a PL/Pts conversion will be an unnecessary ball ache, especially if you get Imperial players, who naturally benefit from PL more than other armies, wishing to derail fairness to maintain that monopoly (spare me the "if they're good friends" or "why would you play" rhetoric, they're all human).
I hope this isn't the case as it would be truly stupid to invest these kinds of resources into this new big system for it to be so limited and not engage with Pts which is obviously the more traversed path of army building. It also doesn't make much sense as, of the two, I am more likely to plan and engage with a crusade game (hence have the time to use Pts) opposed to it being a 'pick up' game, so the execution seems contradictory. Crusade is pushing PL seemingly (from the admittedly little we know) .
I personally have no interest or even a passing care to begin dealing in PL; I don't quite understand it's use as I personally don't see Pts as a particularly big obstacle to a game in an age when calculators, apps and excel all exist. The idea of it being present for 'pick up games' seems totally redundant to me when Pts and modern technology exist and units can maintain some sort of nuance and customisability.
I can imagine 9th edition having the same "Most important Rule" than the other editions. Surely, this means that we, as players, can choose to use points instead of PL for our crusades.
I like the idea of PL, but I think using PL's should be tied to using non-customizable units only (like primaris). There are so many units that can multiply their effectiveness by powrs of magnitude with paid upgrades, and these units will likely never work well with the PL system.
If GW wants to push for PL, they should also give datasheets of "fluffy" non-customizable units with fixed PL values.
All in all, I think 40k has some weirdo units in elite slots that are more like several HQ's bound to a 2" coherency than squads of soldiers. Customization should be left mainly to HQsIMO. In the larger scale that bigger 40k games play at, squads where evry model has different wargear slows the game way down. Maybe leave that ish to skirmish level games, hmm?
I just don't understand why GW, with all the work they have on:
- mission rules (I bet you these 9th ed ones will be far from perfect, even with "pro tips")
- terrain rules (I am more optimistic but terrain rules are hard to do right in any wargame)
- core rules
- matched play rules
- open/narrative/whatever rules
- army specific rules
Why Oh Why bother with an alternative "point" system which fell totally flat the first time around (8th ed).
I would like to tell GW staff "hey guys, honeslty, who is making you do this ? Admit none of you want to do this !" I mean David Graeber would call PL design a "bs Job", of that I am sure
addnid wrote: I just don't understand why GW, with all the work they have on:
- mission rules (I bet you these 9th ed ones will be far from perfect, even with "pro tips")
- terrain rules (I am more optimistic but terrain rules are hard to do right in any wargame)
- core rules
- matched play rules
- open/narrative/whatever rules
- army specific rules
Why Oh Why bother with an alternative "point" system which fell totally flat the first time around (8th ed).
I would like to tell GW staff "hey guys, honeslty, who is making you do this ? Admit none of you want to do this !" I mean David Graeber would call PL design a "bs Job", of that I am sure
Because it's for narrative play where being perfectly balanced is less the goal, and missions are determined by specific victory conditions (survive through turn 3, get your units to your opponent's board edge, defend against an overwhelming foe for as long as you can, ect, ect) that go beyond just killing and holding.
The idea of power level is to have a really stripped down and simple system that's fast to use for quick pick up games. I've a feeling its also aimed at being easier for younger gamers to get into for earlier matches.
It's not that regular points are too complex, just when starting out or after quick games its a lot simpler and doesn't bogg people down before they can play
Gadzilla666 wrote: Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.
I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.
But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.
It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.
You say that like you have proof they didn't focus on other things. Which there is none. Fixing narrative doesn't mean they didn't fix other parts of the game, meaning the gripe-a-thon that has been going on is just as meaningless as it was before you presented this defense.
It's time that could've been spent fixing things elsewhere and that's an indisputable fact.
I think its clear why GW wants to push for power level. Its obvious from the corny morning cartoon CGI "cinematic" trailer, Anime-insipired illustrations, twitch stuff.. even the crusade system is getting on the RPG revival bandwagon to seem hip. They want to get more kids into playing 40K. Us beards are way past the point of no return, no reason to cater so much to us, they want to make 40K more accessible to the general public (and sell a boatload of Space Marines).
tauist wrote: I can imagine 9th edition having the same "Most important Rule" than the other editions. Surely, this means that we, as players, can choose to use points instead of PL for our crusades.
I like the idea of PL, but I think using PL's should be tied to using non-customizable units only (like primaris). There are so many units that can multiply their effectiveness by powrs of magnitude with paid upgrades, and these units will likely never work well with the PL system.
If GW wants to push for PL, they should also give datasheets of "fluffy" non-customizable units with fixed PL values.
All in all, I think 40k has some weirdo units in elite slots that are more like several HQ's bound to a 2" coherency than squads of soldiers. Customization should be left mainly to HQsIMO. In the larger scale that bigger 40k games play at, squads where evry model has different wargear slows the game way down. Maybe leave that ish to skirmish level games, hmm?
No. One of the few things csm have over primaris is the selection of wargear we can take on our units. Unit customization has always been a part of 40k. I want more options not less.
Overread wrote: The idea of power level is to have a really stripped down and simple system that's fast to use for quick pick up games. I've a feeling its also aimed at being easier for younger gamers to get into for earlier matches.
It's not that regular points are too complex, just when starting out or after quick games its a lot simpler and doesn't bogg people down before they can play
Then why tie a system that introduces further complexity to the simplified points system? That is counter-intuitive if the goal for PL is (and should be, IMO) a quick, dirty, easy way to get people who have bought a few boxes of models to playing a reasonably balanced game using only the free rules they get in those boxes, and the free rules they can download online.
This is a thing that EVERYONE ignores online that has been, in my opinion, is that people can play a game of warhammer with free materials that are available in the model boxes that they buy. You can answer someone's question of "Hey, what do I need to play" with "here, take this packet, and grab one of those model boxes."
It isn't the full game, but it functions. and that is better than previous editions.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.
I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.
But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.
It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.
You say that like you have proof they didn't focus on other things. Which there is none. Fixing narrative doesn't mean they didn't fix other parts of the game, meaning the gripe-a-thon that has been going on is just as meaningless as it was before you presented this defense.
It's time that could've been spent fixing things elsewhere and that's an indisputable fact.
Again, what proof do you have that they didn't fix other things? They could have worked on it while the edition was off for playtesting for matched play for example. Just because they worked on Narrative and buffed it into a valid mode of play doesn't mean they didn't work on other things. Not everything has to be aimed at tournament players.
ClockworkZion wrote: You know what system GW admitted to dropping the ball on and said they'd be addressing more often to try and prevent it from being so badly imbalanced? Power level. GW basically overly focused on matched play for 8th and left narrative as a vestigial limb that looked like it was going to fall off (and the less said about open play the better).
This is correct. Which felt completely at odds with where the game design headed. The studio is capable of designing rulesets for competitive play, but what they're doing with 40K - endless factions and subfactions and traits and stratagems isn't that. It's a helluva toolbox for narrative play, though.
I think GW and many here have this idea that "narrative players" and "casuals" and whatever (I considered myself as such from 4th to 6th ed, then started competing a bit during 7th) players are ok with wonky balance, and far from perfect mission rules, and such, unlike comp players.
Stuff like missions where one side is sure to win, and whatever other bad idea GW or a someone with weird ideas for a home made mission (I produced my fair share of dodgy missions back in the day, especially during 5th ed haha hah).
I think that is total bull, all aplyers want good, sound stuff and that is why all GW attempts ti cater specifically to that socalled "crowd" fail miserably,
every
single
time
This crusade stuff doesn't seem tight at all. 100 year old space marines, in the fluff, don't become better shooters after one or two battles, do they ? What works for necromunda gangers doesn't for Necrons, eldar, etc. Orks ok, they get bigget, but tyranids? I mean the whole concept is just so "not 40k" that it feels very strange they actually went through with this.
This Crusade stuff should reallty be called "kids 40k" or something, because it just doesn't really fit in the fluff at all. I heard it was an AoS port, well... I dunno, hopefully the rest of this weeks' previews will just make everyonbe forget about Crusade until relase, then those who don't mind the "not 40k aspect" of Crusade can just have their fun for a few games (by 2021 Crusade will have gone, i don't think they will keep adding Crusade stuff in 2021 codexes, but that is just my opinion)
Sasori wrote: Points have been completely adjusted across the entire game.
Major change, they said on average they have gone up.
That's definitely a change of tact. Hopefully they will be able to show some more granularity between different units. You can only go so low of course.
If they raise the points on the hellforged super heavys I may have an aneurism though.
What else did they say in the interview about Matched Play ? Are they going to release a special PDF with all the point changes ? I'm wondering if the point costs in Engine War are going to stay the same or if they're already obsolete.
addnid wrote: I think GW and many here have this idea that "narrative players" and "casuals" and whatever (I considered myself as such from 4th to 6th ed, then started competing a bit during 7th) players are ok with wonky balance, and far from perfect mission rules, and such, unlike comp players.
Stuff like missions where one side is sure to win, and whatever other bad idea GW or a someone with weird ideas for a home made mission (I produced my fair share of dodgy missions back in the day, especially during 5th ed haha hah).
I think that is total bull, all aplyers want good, sound stuff and that is why all GW attempts ti cater specifically to that socalled "crowd" fail miserably,
every
single
time
This crusade stuff doesn't seem tight at all. 100 year old space marines, in the fluff, don't become better shooters after one or two battles, do they ? What works for necromunda gangers doesn't for Necrons, eldar, etc. Orks ok, they get bigget, but tyranids? I mean the whole concept is just so "not 40k" that it feels very strange they actually went through with this.
This Crusade stuff should reallty be called "kids 40k" or something, because it just doesn't really fit in the fluff at all. I heard it was an AoS port, well... I dunno, hopefully the rest of this weeks' previews will just make everyonbe forget about Crusade until relase, then those who don't mind the "not 40k aspect" of Crusade can just have their fun for a few games (by 2021 Crusade will have gone, i don't think they will keep adding Crusade stuff in 2021 codexes, but that is just my opinion)
How does it not fit in the fluff? Do soldiers not get more experienced with every battle they survive? Do injuries not give people long lasting impairments?
How about the hive mind realises a certain pack of nids are becoming very successful at a specific tasks so start to give them specific mutations (veteran upgrades). This is all very 40k and requires next to no imagination how it fits into the narrative of the setting.
Sasori wrote: Points have been completely adjusted across the entire game.
Major change, they said on average they have gone up.
That's definitely a change of tact. Hopefully they will be able to show some more granularity between different units. You can only go so low of course.
If they raise the points on the hellforged super heavys I may have an aneurism though.
Genuinely so happy about this, makes new armies and expanding existing more palatable, stops games taking so long. Smiles for miles. 6 cp at 1k is harsh however.
Aaranis wrote: What else did they say in the interview about Matched Play ? Are they going to release a special PDF with all the point changes ? I'm wondering if the point costs in Engine War are going to stay the same or if they're already obsolete.
Yes - there will be a PDF will all the points changes. They'll also be visible in the app with the army builder on pre-order day.
No, Engine War points are for 8th edition. They have no influence on 9th ed. points since it's a different game that has different considerations for unit pricing.
The idea of having units forfeit their turn to perform a secondary objective action like raising a banner, if implemented well, could be the reason to take Troops choices.
addnid wrote: I think GW and many here have this idea that "narrative players" and "casuals" and whatever (I considered myself as such from 4th to 6th ed, then started competing a bit during 7th) players are ok with wonky balance, and far from perfect mission rules, and such, unlike comp players.
Stuff like missions where one side is sure to win, and whatever other bad idea GW or a someone with weird ideas for a home made mission (I produced my fair share of dodgy missions back in the day, especially during 5th ed haha hah).
I think that is total bull, all aplyers want good, sound stuff and that is why all GW attempts ti cater specifically to that socalled "crowd" fail miserably,
every
single
time
This crusade stuff doesn't seem tight at all. 100 year old space marines, in the fluff, don't become better shooters after one or two battles, do they ? What works for necromunda gangers doesn't for Necrons, eldar, etc. Orks ok, they get bigget, but tyranids? I mean the whole concept is just so "not 40k" that it feels very strange they actually went through with this.
This Crusade stuff should reallty be called "kids 40k" or something, because it just doesn't really fit in the fluff at all. I heard it was an AoS port, well... I dunno, hopefully the rest of this weeks' previews will just make everyonbe forget about Crusade until relase, then those who don't mind the "not 40k aspect" of Crusade can just have their fun for a few games (by 2021 Crusade will have gone, i don't think they will keep adding Crusade stuff in 2021 codexes, but that is just my opinion)
Genuinely one of the worst posts about 9th ed I've seen, and there's been a lot, congratulations.
lord_blackfang wrote: The lack of a 1500 pt tier is undoubtedly a conscious effort to dissuade sub-2k games.
Yeah that is weird how its not linear. It should be going up in increments of 500, but it starts jumping by 1000 past the 500 point tier. I guess 1500 points gives you 6CP then, instead of 9? I hope this doesn't mean that you technically aren't allowed to play games from 1001-1999 points, which would just be weird design.
Traditionally, your models could either stand near objectives or shoot/punch. No longer! Now you can perform rituals, plant homing beacons, raise banners on key objectives and more. This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.
I don't understand this. I can not recall at any point, since I began playing in 4th ed, where you had to choose between attacking or holding an objective. Usually you just plopped some units down on the objective and shoot at anything that came close.
Really liking these changes so far. Especially the secondary objectives thing and the actions that unit can do while controlling, would be a breath of fresh air if they don't screw it up with obvious "best choices".
addnid wrote: I think GW and many here have this idea that "narrative players" and "casuals" and whatever (I considered myself as such from 4th to 6th ed, then started competing a bit during 7th) players are ok with wonky balance, and far from perfect mission rules, and such, unlike comp players.
Stuff like missions where one side is sure to win, and whatever other bad idea GW or a someone with weird ideas for a home made mission (I produced my fair share of dodgy missions back in the day, especially during 5th ed haha hah).
I think that is total bull, all aplyers want good, sound stuff and that is why all GW attempts ti cater specifically to that socalled "crowd" fail miserably,
every
single
time
This crusade stuff doesn't seem tight at all. 100 year old space marines, in the fluff, don't become better shooters after one or two battles, do they ? What works for necromunda gangers doesn't for Necrons, eldar, etc. Orks ok, they get bigget, but tyranids? I mean the whole concept is just so "not 40k" that it feels very strange they actually went through with this.
This Crusade stuff should reallty be called "kids 40k" or something, because it just doesn't really fit in the fluff at all. I heard it was an AoS port, well... I dunno, hopefully the rest of this weeks' previews will just make everyonbe forget about Crusade until relase, then those who don't mind the "not 40k aspect" of Crusade can just have their fun for a few games (by 2021 Crusade will have gone, i don't think they will keep adding Crusade stuff in 2021 codexes, but that is just my opinion)
Genuinely one of the worst posts about 9th ed I've seen, and there's been a lot, congratulations.
Why? Are you a narrative player who wants one-sided stomps, and the measurements (be they PL or Points) provided to be inaccurate?
I can see that the later part of the post might be grating, but the first bit? Seems pretty spot on.
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
I'm betting within a year the new tourney standard will be above 2000 pts and eventually the standard model count will be larger than now despite points going up slightly.
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.
Latro_ wrote: wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected
Interesting they have basically gone semi ITC with the missions, e.g. you pic objs
Hopefully this means we'll see ITC and ETC playing the same rules at last, so balance decisions GW makes affect both equally rather than being skewed by one.
Traditionally, your models could either stand near objectives or shoot/punch. No longer! Now you can perform rituals, plant homing beacons, raise banners on key objectives and more. This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.
I don't understand this. I can not recall at any point, since I began playing in 4th ed, where you had to choose between attacking or holding an objective. Usually you just plopped some units down on the objective and shoot at anything that came close.
Probably more saying giving more things like the turrets Tau can take for firewarrior squads: more types of actions to take other than move, shoot and fight.
Latro_ wrote: wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected
Interesting they have basically gone semi ITC with the missions, e.g. you pic objs
That's less than a double battalion. If there's no way to get more cpcsm are going to be hurting.
They mentioned in another stream/article that you generate CP ingame as well. My bet is that you get 2 CP per turn, one for being in the game and 1 for your warlord like it is in KT. This way a normal game has about 22 CP over the game and possibly incentivizes killling enemy warlords.
There may be other ways to generate Command points, but everyone having the starting CP seems great.
We'll also probably generate one each turn in the Command phase.
I don't see tournaments going above 2k points. I think the new missions and everything encourage 2k points. I also hope the mew missions mean an end to the all the other rules formats and they just follow the GW lead.
Nightlord1987 wrote: .... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?
I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.
I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.
I'd like to have you tell the same thing to armies like Harlequins, Orks and GSC who are bound by huge pre-game and in-game usage of stratagems to accomplish what other armies do by characters/built in abilities in their datasheets. I bet they're "gamers that gonna game the system" too?
Traditionally, your models could either stand near objectives or shoot/punch. No longer! Now you can perform rituals, plant homing beacons, raise banners on key objectives and more. This creates dynamic moments where you may need to decide between firing at the enemy or bravely accomplishing a mission.
I don't understand this. I can not recall at any point, since I began playing in 4th ed, where you had to choose between attacking or holding an objective. Usually you just plopped some units down on the objective and shoot at anything that came close.
Probably more saying giving more things like the turrets Tau can take for firewarrior squads: more types of actions to take other than move, shoot and fight.
That is probably it, its just the "either" / "or" part that's throwing me off.
I get what the author is trying to say now, it's just really awkward.
Latro_ wrote: wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected
Interesting they have basically gone semi ITC with the missions, e.g. you pic objs
That's less than a double battalion. If there's no way to get more cpcsm are going to be hurting.
Yeah they're borrowing from ITC for the missions. Somewhere Ishuga is probably not happy. (Not so sure if I am).
hurting even worse with SIX POINT CULTISTS wooot! - perhaps everything is getting a hike
Actually, perhaps with the CP thing 3K is going to be the new 2K because 20pt incessors is about the same % increase
To quote the article you obviosuly didn't bother reading or skimming:
Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience. It also means there’s room for more granularity when establishing how powerful one unit or ability is compared to another, and a global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’. Here are a couple of examples so you can see what to expect.
Interesting actually that they are even suggesting armies will have fewer models in them! Strikes me that more price rises are on the horizon as GW appear to be going for quality over quantity. e.g. less models that cost more
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.
While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.
Latro_ wrote: wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected
Interesting they have basically gone semi ITC with the missions, e.g. you pic objs
That's less than a double battalion. If there's no way to get more cpcsm are going to be hurting.
Yeah they're borrowing from ITC for the missions. Somewhere Ishuga is probably not happy. (Not so sure if I am).
hurting even worse with SIX POINT CULTISTS wooot! - perhaps everything is getting a hike
Actually, perhaps with the CP thing 3K is going to be the new 2K because 20pt incessors is about the same % increase
To quote the article you obviosuly didn't bother reading or skimming:
Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience. It also means there’s room for more granularity when establishing how powerful one unit or ability is compared to another, and a global points reset ensures everyone starts in the same place on Day 1, with no established meta or ‘best army’. Here are a couple of examples so you can see what to expect.
Hmm, well that would make 2k points feel a little better to play. Right now 2k takes bloody ages. If armies are smaller due to overall points increases, that would make large point games feel smoother to play.
On the flip side though, it would also make smaller point games feel restrictive.
Latro_ wrote: Interesting actually that they are even suggesting armies will have fewer models in them! Strikes me that more price rises are on the horizon as GW appear to be going for quality over quantity. e.g. less models that cost more
It is a really good thing to hear. Rules changes are hard to judge without full context, but as a design principle smaller games is something I want and am relieved is the case.
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.
While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.
Maybe its a reaction to complaints that light infantry type units are too cost-effective, hence the need in 8th ed to introduce weapons with absurd fire rates to deal with light infantry, which made the game balance all weird, as those same weapons are also effective against elite infantry if you can get enough of them?
Latro_ wrote: Interesting actually that they are even suggesting armies will have fewer models in them! Strikes me that more price rises are on the horizon as GW appear to be going for quality over quantity. e.g. less models that cost more
It is a really good thing to hear. Rules changes are hard to judge without full context, but as a design principle smaller games is something I want and am relieved is the case.
The design principle is actually to push for 3000 pts as standard by the end of the edition
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.
While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.
That's base cost. Chances are wargear also went up, which would hike Intercessors even further.
My 2 cynical cents: points are going up to allow people to buy into the game quicker. It's easier to have a playable force. Once the edition's established they'll reduce point cost again to get more people buying more models.
Yeah on the topic of smaller games, I feel like people are quickly going to just amp up the "normal" game size from 2000 to 3000 or something and it won't help at all. People generally just want to play a lot of their collection and not feel limited.
Which is sad because I'm just hoping this'll make AdMech armies cheaper in relation to the abysmal €/pts cost of today where a Skorpius is 65€ for 70-80ish pts
Looks like it. I'm more interested in what this Mental Interrogation ability is though. A support ability that scores VP, that can be stacked with that objective, maybe?
Aaranis wrote: Yeah on the topic of smaller games, I feel like people are quickly going to just amp up the "normal" game size from 2000 to 3000 or something and it won't help at all. People generally just want to play a lot of their collection and not feel limited.
Which is sad because I'm just hoping this'll make AdMech armies cheaper in relation to the abysmal €/pts cost of today where a Skorpius is 65€ for 70-80ish pts
With points hikes I could see 2k armies totalling up closer to 3k leading to 3k being the new large game standard for bringing all your toys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote: Warp Charge is already in the game, it's the target roll you need to pass.
Intercessors go up less than 20%.
Cultists go up 50%.
Bingo, instead of 4 Cultists to every Intercessor, it is now THREE Cultists to every Intercessor!
Yeah that did not inspire confidence especially given how powerful marines currently are to show them getting a 20% increase while cultits get 50%, presumably other chaff infantry ie guards squads etc get similar increases, yeah no wonder elite models became way more popular in test game's.
Latro_ wrote: wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected
Interesting they have basically gone semi ITC with the missions, e.g. you pic objs
That's less than a double battalion. If there's no way to get more cpcsm are going to be hurting.
Yeah they're borrowing from ITC for the missions. Somewhere Ishuga is probably not happy. (Not so sure if I am).
Are you forgetting that you gain CP every Command Phase, so 2x a round?
Of course I haven't, but some armies are more built around strategems than others, csm being one of those, and until they fix our core units that means we're starting behind armies that now have an excess of needed cp.
Latro_ wrote: wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected
Interesting they have basically gone semi ITC with the missions, e.g. you pic objs
That's less than a double battalion. If there's no way to get more cpcsm are going to be hurting.
Yeah they're borrowing from ITC for the missions. Somewhere Ishuga is probably not happy. (Not so sure if I am).
hurting even worse with SIX POINT CULTISTS wooot! - perhaps everything is getting a hike
Actually, perhaps with the CP thing 3K is going to be the new 2K because 20pt incessors is about the same % increase
Eh they said in average points go up. Yes 6 pts cultist. Ig troopers, immortals, sob troopers, tanks etc all are getting changes. Not sdame % though.
And hopefully 3k doesn't become new standard. Whole point is to quicken games and reduce stuff on board. If players nullify that they lose all rights to complain about prices.
Oh and mid game cp generation seems to be thing. 12cp at 2k won't be all you have
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: I'm betting within a year the new tourney standard will be above 2000 pts and eventually the standard model count will be larger than now despite points going up slightly.
Well would fit bill. Players making 40k more expensive yet complain about price of 40k
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.
While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.
I mean, as I couched my own trepidation with that: We know that we will be seeing reworks to how terrain and morale both work. If either of them are reworked in such a way that large horde units are advantaged (Likely, IMO) then cultists being less cheap and cheerful makes sense.
We also know that Actions, which are things you give up your normal offensive actions to accomplish, are a major factor in mission design. This greatly encourages MSU cheapo units that don't care if they don't get to shoot or fight. Hopefully there will be some restrictions on who can Action (lookin' at you, Tau with your drones...) but that is another thing that could make sense.
This isn't apologism. I'm not saying that GW in their infinite wisdom have obviously masterfully balanced all points and the currently strongest troop choice unit in the game is now reasonable for 20pts instead of 17. I'm saying that we just don't have enough info at this point to react...at all to this information. Which I would say is probably on purpose.
I'm waiting to see more on the points regarding the Intercessors in the example given, for all we know, each weapon option the unit has may now be costed, and mean a base line Marine could be more expensive on top of this base value. It all depends how they've gone for units with upgrades this edition.
Hopefully the next round of books just cuts strategems by 3/4 and leaves just a few powerful game changers so we don't have to leaf through pages of gak we never use. Maybe move some of those abilities back into unit datasheets.
How tall is a pillar?
How wide is a pillar?
Does it block LOS?
Does it provide cover?
Is the limit on scoring the Primary Objective (15 VPs) per turn or per game?
And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.
While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.
That's base cost. Chances are wargear also went up, which would hike Intercessors even further.
Aren't all the various intercessor bolt gun variants currently free? So they'll only go up if free equipment goes away.
Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.
The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.
Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.
Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.
How tall is a pillar?
How wide is a pillar?
Does it block LOS?
Does it provide cover?
Is the limit on scoring the Primary Objective (15 VPs) per turn or per game?
And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.
By the looks of it, a Pillar is just a fancy name for a objective marker in this case. So probably about the same size as a objective marker, and probably doesn't affect LoS or cover.
It seems the VP cap is for the entire game, not per round. Otherwise that would defeat the purpose of a cap.
How tall is a pillar?
How wide is a pillar?
Does it block LOS?
Does it provide cover?
Is the limit on scoring the Primary Objective (15 VPs) per turn or per game?
And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.
Durability can stay the same even if the model count drops game wide, meaning less lethal weapons on the table resulting in less lethal games.
Nightlord1987 wrote: .... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?
I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.
I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.
Yeah. I've been focusing on AT now for months, and that game's approach to stratagems is jarringly different -- very limited number of points to spend and strats have to be purchased pre-game. So they're thematic and impactful without being game-tipping or the game-within-the-game that they are in 40K.
Not saying 40K should use the AT approach to strats, but there are reasons why I've been leaving them out of the 40K games I've been playing with my oldest. It's a massive distraction from the actual gameplay that he doesn't need as he learns the game. When I introduce them, it'll probably be in an AT style fashion at first. I get that the existing system is fine with all the warhammer pro athletes, but that isn't the bulk of GW's customers and I can absolutely see why reining them in a little would be on their to-do list.
Galas wrote: Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.
The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.
Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.
Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.
Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.
I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.
As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.
I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it. What actually matters is the end points ratio of carnifex to opposing gun, the advantage of increasing all the points costs is that they have more room to modify that ratio than they do now.
Another thing I believe worth mentioning, is that in the article they specifically use the word "meta" and "alpha strike". I don't think they used those gamer terms before on WHC, and I would guess it comes from more competent playtesters and listening to their feedback that encourages them to use this vocabulary. It shows they're at least AWARE of the main components of competitive play. I remember a WD article or something where they invited top tournament players at their studios and were "shocked" or something upon discovering their list was a mess of a soup. It revealed they had no idea what was actually going on in the average game of 40k.
Galas wrote: Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.
The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.
Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.
Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.
Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.
I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.
As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.
Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?
Galas wrote: Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.
The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.
Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.
Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.
Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.
I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.
As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.
Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?
I don't know anything about what GW will do long term. I just have a hope that they won't fall down the same slippery slope of racing points to the bottom.
And citing 8th ed doesn't work as well when there is a clear different design goal to actively balance the game and them making a clear note that points costs going up were to add granularity into the game. I don't see them overturning that too easily unless they screw something up.
Thats what I said. GW WILL lower points of units but people will refuse to go back from the new bigger point standard to 2k again so the end result will be bigger games. And with fantasy we know how that ends.
fingol23 wrote: I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it.
Individual guns are vastly more dangerous than they were in previous editions. It doesn't take much to kill a Carnifex. The opponent having 6 Lascannons rather than 8 isn't going to change that.
Galas wrote: Thats what I said. GW WILL lower points of units but people will refuse to go back from the new bigger point standard to 2k again so the end result will be bigger games. And with fantasy we know how that ends.
And I'm saying I don't agree that it will be an inevitability. If anything the desire to take all their toys will likely just result in 3k being the new tournament standard and nothing changes on that level, while lower points levels get more room to breathe.
fingol23 wrote: I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it.
Individual guns are vastly more dangerous than they were in previous editions. It doesn't take much to kill a Carnifex. The opponent having 6 Lascannons rather than 8 isn't going to change that.
Terrain is changing though, which means protecting your Carnifex will likely be easier. Plus not all points hikes will be equal. Expensive models may see smaller bumps to their base cost for example.
Aaranis wrote: Another thing I believe worth mentioning, is that in the article they specifically use the word "meta" and "alpha strike". I don't think they used those gamer terms before on WHC, and I would guess it comes from more competent playtesters and listening to their feedback that encourages them to use this vocabulary. It shows they're at least AWARE of the main components of competitive play. I remember a WD article or something where they invited top tournament players at their studios and were "shocked" or something upon discovering their list was a mess of a soup. It revealed they had no idea what was actually going on in the average game of 40k.
Guessing you didn't recognise this article is written by Mike Brandt ex Nova open has been heavily involved in Competitive 40k, the guy GW "just hired" as their events guru.
fingol23 wrote: I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it.
Individual guns are vastly more dangerous than they were in previous editions. It doesn't take much to kill a Carnifex. The opponent having 6 Lascannons rather than 8 isn't going to change that.
That is just factually wrong. In a game of probabilatty 6 lascannons will have less chancre of killing a carnifex then 8 of the same lascannons will.
Galas wrote: And with fantasy we know how that ends.
End Times proved bigger armies weren't an issue on their own.
The issues with Fantasy were manyfold including
1) A rules system that didn't work well at smaller point values. Because of the whole rank and file nature of the game a 500point battle was rather on the boring side. You only had very limited blocks on the table so a lot of the manoeuvring and such didn't work as well and you didn't really have all the parts of an army to make it work. So the rules system itself needed bigger armies.
2) Lack of heavy marketing of smaller game modes (and as point 1 points out also provision of effective game modes). These two points combined meant that the game itself pushed you to need bigger armies and that there wasn't as much on offer for smaller values.
3) A lack of effective marketing. The game started to slip into a downward spiral where newbies got rarer and rarer. The result of which is that you get increased disparity between beginner and established populations. Now instead of a few beginners mucking around at smaller point values; you had your pros with 2K+ armies and one or two beginners at a time. So there was less of a population to help bridge the gap
4) A general lack of marketing and release attention.
Overall points 3 and 4 I think were partly the result of Lord of the Rings appearing as the big fantasy breadwinner and getting the lions share of attention.
Once you hit a downward player spiral its hard to pull out of it and GW didn't really try until End-Times. By which point management had already written the game off.
In today's market 40K has many benefits. Killteam, skirmish games and such are far more advertised as their own thing. Killteam -nothing new in itself - is now advertised and packaged up to gamers; its not just a page of rules in the big rule book. It's its own game. There's also games like Blackstone Fortress which help ease people in with smaller collections and model counts. Basically GW have worked hard to establish far more of a bridge in the game itself between lower and higher point games. When you combine that with effective marketing and market growth you introduce the potential for greater numbers of newbies, which helps other newbies settle in and move up the scale as they build up their armies. It also means there's perhaps less pressure on the need to have 2K armies to get to the fun bits.
Big armies are a concern, but at present I'd say that GW have moved 40K and also AoS into positions where there are ample tools and entertainment options to help newbies along to steadily reach the 2K whilst having games along the way. Rather than the old world style where you were almost waiting in massive game limbo before you got to 2K (or at least 1.5K) and could then play "proper games".
ClockworkZion wrote: Terrain is changing though, which means protecting your Carnifex will likely be easier. Plus not all points hikes will be equal. Expensive models may see smaller bumps to their base cost for example.
Depends on whether points increases are across the board for all units, or just for select units. I mean, forget the 'Fex for a second, let's look at the Trygon. Trygon are a liability now as they're not tough enough to stand up to any amount of firepower. If the points for a T6 Trygon do up, they might as well stop producing the miniature.
Given GW's unceasing dedication to balancing via pendulum swing rather than fixing specific problems, I'm worried that they've just increased the cost on everything without really thinking it through. Are Cultists worth 6 points? Did they also put CSM, which no one is bringing, up as well?
Niiai wrote: That is just factually wrong. In a game of probabilatty 6 lascannons will have less chancre of killing a carnifex then 8 of the same lascannons will.
Oh brother... if you can't figure out what I meant, then, really why reply?
I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Something people seem to be ignoring is that this is just the base cost of the model and in all likelihood Astartes will be paying more for even their basic wargear.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.
Intercessors are a popular C:SM unit, while Cultists where the backbone of most CSM lists for most of 8th. That is likely why they were picked, because everyone has some idea about them because they've seen them regularly.
Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]
No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.
tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc
Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".
They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.
We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.
While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.
That's base cost. Chances are wargear also went up, which would hike Intercessors even further.
Aren't all the various intercessor bolt gun variants currently free? So they'll only go up if free equipment goes away.
Bolters and Bolt Rifles are currently free, all others cost points. I assume we'll see all of them go up to compensate for Chapter Tactics at minimum.
It does seem almost designed to cause people to freak out. Especially if intercessor wargear does now cost points - after all, it currently does not, so you'd assume that's the full cost of both of the models being presented.
And you've got one model currently considered overnerfed for its current cost going up much more than, again, the single best troop choice unit in the game currently.
Aaranis wrote: Another thing I believe worth mentioning, is that in the article they specifically use the word "meta" and "alpha strike". I don't think they used those gamer terms before on WHC, and I would guess it comes from more competent playtesters and listening to their feedback that encourages them to use this vocabulary. It shows they're at least AWARE of the main components of competitive play. I remember a WD article or something where they invited top tournament players at their studios and were "shocked" or something upon discovering their list was a mess of a soup. It revealed they had no idea what was actually going on in the average game of 40k.
Guessing you didn't recognise this article is written by Mike Brandt ex Nova open has been heavily involved in Competitive 40k, the guy GW "just hired" as their events guru.
Haha guessed right, I skipped straight to the content of the article ! It's cool they hire people like him though.
Galas wrote: Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.
The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.
Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.
Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.
Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.
I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.
As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.
Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?
I don't know anything about what GW will do long term. I just have a hope that they won't fall down the same slippery slope of racing points to the bottom.
And citing 8th ed doesn't work as well when there is a clear different design goal to actively balance the game and them making a clear note that points costs going up were to add granularity into the game. I don't see them overturning that too easily unless they screw something up.
I mean, you can look at previous editions for the clear going down of units, with the only prime difference being that Chapter Approved made it a faster process.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Something people seem to be ignoring is that this is just the base cost of the model and in all likelihood Astartes will be paying more for even their basic wargear.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.
Intercessors are a popular C:SM unit, while Cultists where the backbone of most CSM lists for most of 8th. That is likely why they were picked, because everyone has some idea about them because they've seen them regularly.
How can you be sure? Currently intercessor bolt weapons are free except for auto bolt rifles. Why would you think free basic weapons are going to start having a price?
Galas wrote: Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.
The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.
Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.
Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.
Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.
I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.
As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.
Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?
I don't know anything about what GW will do long term. I just have a hope that they won't fall down the same slippery slope of racing points to the bottom.
And citing 8th ed doesn't work as well when there is a clear different design goal to actively balance the game and them making a clear note that points costs going up were to add granularity into the game. I don't see them overturning that too easily unless they screw something up.
I mean, you can look at previous editions for the clear going down of units, with the only prime difference being that Chapter Approved made it a faster process.
Previous editions don't work as much because they never had someone like Mike Brandt running their event planning in the past, nor did they have such a large group of playtesters on the project.
Basically "well they used to do X" doesn't work because a lot of the evidence is from a different company leadership (who actively pushed model sales over everything else) and a different design ethos from the rules team. 8th stepped away from 3-7th's design ethos, but 9th is sprinting away from it.
the_scotsman wrote: It does seem almost designed to cause people to freak out. Especially if intercessor wargear does now cost points - after all, it currently does not, so you'd assume that's the full cost of both of the models being presented.
And you've got one model currently considered overnerfed for its current cost going up much more than, again, the single best troop choice unit in the game currently.
It's almost like they are trying to upset the player base which i have heard of outrage marketing but this feels like one heck of a gamble given a lot of people are probably going to be reassessing priorities qith lockdowns layoffs and etc.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Something people seem to be ignoring is that this is just the base cost of the model and in all likelihood Astartes will be paying more for even their basic wargear.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.
Intercessors are a popular C:SM unit, while Cultists where the backbone of most CSM lists for most of 8th. That is likely why they were picked, because everyone has some idea about them because they've seen them regularly.
How can you be sure? Currently intercessor bolt weapons are free except for auto bolt rifles. Why would you think free basic weapons are going to start having a price?
Increased granularity being a design goal tells me we should expect to see wargear costs shift in points cost.
the_scotsman wrote: It does seem almost designed to cause people to freak out. Especially if intercessor wargear does now cost points - after all, it currently does not, so you'd assume that's the full cost of both of the models being presented.
And you've got one model currently considered overnerfed for its current cost going up much more than, again, the single best troop choice unit in the game currently.
It's almost like they are trying to upset the player base which i have heard of outrage marketing but this feels like one heck of a gamble given a lot of people are probably going to be reassessing priorities qith lockdowns layoffs and etc.
I think the tinfoil hatting is getting a little silly. As I pointed out earlier, they were the most common troops choices of 8th, making them good, easy to recognize examples everyone can recognize with little to no need to go check CA 2019.
Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.
Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.
Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.
Galas wrote: Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.
The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.
Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.
Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.
Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.
I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.
As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.
Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?
I don't know anything about what GW will do long term. I just have a hope that they won't fall down the same slippery slope of racing points to the bottom.
And citing 8th ed doesn't work as well when there is a clear different design goal to actively balance the game and them making a clear note that points costs going up were to add granularity into the game. I don't see them overturning that too easily unless they screw something up.
I mean, you can look at previous editions for the clear going down of units, with the only prime difference being that Chapter Approved made it a faster process.
Previous editions don't work as much because they never had someone like Mike Brandt running their event planning in the past, nor did they have such a large group of playtesters on the project.
Basically "well they used to do X" doesn't work because a lot of the evidence is from a different company leadership (who actively pushed model sales over everything else) and a different design ethos from the rules team. 8th stepped away from 3-7th's design ethos, but 9th is sprinting away from it.
Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!
Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!
Sarcasm noted, and then discarded as useless to actual discussion.
The playtesting group for 8th was clearly smaller than the one for 9th. IIRC they said they had one for each game type...and that was basically it. 9th looks like it has a nice range of playtesting groups, some of which cover multiple game types (like Tabletop Tactics).
Look, GW can always screw this up, but putting the cart before the horse doesn't promote discussion, it just leads to one of many "the sky is falling" panic attacks this board is known for everytime any change is announced.
Ice_can wrote:
Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.
I have scions with not a single plasma weapon in the whole army.
Author-lost-in-editing wrote:
Except GW is now trying to say that the two systems are balanced enough that you can use your crusade force (in PL) against a match play army in Points. That seems totally at odds with the point of creating two systems in the first place as they aren't going to be balanced.
I've played about twenty PL vs Points games in 8th and they were fine. What determines if it will work? Are the players on the same page in terms of army building approach? If one player is about making their army as strong as possible and the other is picking what they think looks cool, no points or PL or any other system will make up for that.
And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...
And they could in 8th. I did it a lot. How much is each army optimized? That's the determinant of whether or not it will work, not whether you are using points system 1 or points system 2.
BaconCatBug wrote:
Why Oh Why bother with an alternative "point" system which fell totally flat the first time around (8th ed).
GW has a source of information you don't have. Usage statistics for Combat Roster. They know exactly how many times people used that and made a PL based list and saved it or printed it or whatever. I bet there are loads of more casual home gamers like myself who used it all the time. Everyone thinks that they way they play is the vast majority, but it's likely not true. Not everyone plays like you, not everyone plays like me. GW has data, we don't. They are keeping PL for the new edition.
About the latest article:
"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."
I am all for a reduced model count. The game bogs down enough. Hopefully both PL and Points are based on this sort of approach.
The scenarios they've been talking about with things like passing a psychic test to score a progressive objective sound cool too.
Voss wrote: Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.
Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.
Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.
I doubt it's global. Some units are already over costed. If they increase the price of the marine super heavys any more they might as well stop making rules for them in 40k and only sell them for hh.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Something people seem to be ignoring is that this is just the base cost of the model and in all likelihood Astartes will be paying more for even their basic wargear.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.
Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.
However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .
Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.
Intercessors are a popular C:SM unit, while Cultists where the backbone of most CSM lists for most of 8th. That is likely why they were picked, because everyone has some idea about them because they've seen them regularly.
How can you be sure? Currently intercessor bolt weapons are free except for auto bolt rifles. Why would you think free basic weapons are going to start having a price?
Increased granularity being a design goal tells me we should expect to see wargear costs shift in points cost.
the_scotsman wrote: It does seem almost designed to cause people to freak out. Especially if intercessor wargear does now cost points - after all, it currently does not, so you'd assume that's the full cost of both of the models being presented.
And you've got one model currently considered overnerfed for its current cost going up much more than, again, the single best troop choice unit in the game currently.
It's almost like they are trying to upset the player base which i have heard of outrage marketing but this feels like one heck of a gamble given a lot of people are probably going to be reassessing priorities qith lockdowns layoffs and etc.
I think the tinfoil hatting is getting a little silly. As I pointed out earlier, they were the most common troops choices of 8th, making them good, easy to recognize examples everyone can recognize with little to no need to go check CA 2019.
If that's the case and intercessors no longer get free weapons what is the good reason not to show that in the artical and avoid pissing people off?
GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).
GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.
Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.
Voss wrote: Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.
Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.
Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.
I doubt it's global. Some units are already over costed. If they increase the price of the marine super heavys any more they might as well stop making rules for them in 40k and only sell them for hh.
They were pretty explicit in the stream about changing the points for everything. They mentioned that the current points may have suited 8th, but they don't suit 9th.
Will that mean every single thing got it's points adjusted? Probably not, but the vast, vast majority will.
GW point increase is allready flawed. If you want to make a general point increase to make games "smaller" and have more room on the low cost units the increase should be the same in % for every unit.
Then after that you can start costing things individually and adjusting based in performance, of course, but thats a totally different beast.
GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).
GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.
Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.
GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).
GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.
Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.
I think it's more likely we'll see them continuing their current stance of "You didn't like using this unit, well we've made it better and cheaper" which can be a good thing given how massively far off from OK the stat blocks and abilities of units like the Trygon (seriously, S7 and T6 on a model that big?) started out, but 8th showed they are quite likely going to swing too hard in many cases.
Well, you see, cultists have far less firepower than intercessors so when you forego a turn of shooting to run the flag up the flagpole for the "At Full Mast" mission objective they lose out on a lot less. This makes them far more valuable and thus their pts cost went up. That's why in 9th the better a unit is, the less pts it costs! It all makes sense if you think about it.
Voss wrote: Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.
Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.
Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.
I doubt it's global. Some units are already over costed. If they increase the price of the marine super heavys any more they might as well stop making rules for them in 40k and only sell them for hh.
They said each faction, but they didn't say every model.
Knowing how this works, it means everything but Cenobyte Servitors will go up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: If that's the case and intercessors no longer get free weapons what is the good reason not to show that in the artical and avoid pissing people off?
People have been pissed off at every article this week due to "how little" information is being presented. It's clear they won't show their hand all at once and they want to save stuff for later.
"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."
I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.
So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).
GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.
Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.
An interesting theory, but they don't playtest in a vacuum and it seems they're starting to listen to the playtesters a lot more.
Plus I did see someone put forth the idea that they might use the app to collect data on the lists people are building and use that to help spot units that are rarely, if ever, being played.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: GW point increase is allready flawed. If you want to make a general point increase to make games "smaller" and have more room on the low cost units the increase should be the same in % for every unit.
Then after that you can start costing things individually and adjusting based in performance, of course, but thats a totally different beast.
That only works if the core rules stay the same. Cheap chaffe units might have gained more value as units who preform actions (like siphoning in that example mission) since they're easy to spam meaning they needed a bigger points hike then already expensive elite infantry. That's just a guess, but considering they said points changes were made because of the changes to the game changing strengths and weaknesses of various units I could see that being the sort of thinking that would lead to different points hikes.
"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."
I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.
So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
10:1 people would still just play larger sized games no matter what GW said the points ceiling is, so they tried to account for that and said 3k is the new 2k pre-emptively.
"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."
I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.
So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
I think its more of a means to increase the range of points costs so you have more to play with when pointing one unit vs another.
Gimgamgoo wrote: Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
Gimgamgoo wrote: So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
Then you wouldn't gain the increased granularity in point balance between units, the right thing to do is to increase the scale to allow for more subtle changes. There was a huge mess on the forum where people wanted Guardsmen to go from 4 to 5 pts, but then that would mean Veterans would have to go from 5 to 6, and then why bother using a Veteran when x unit is already 6 pts... And so forth. If they multiply all values by two we can have 8 pts Guardsmen that go up to 9 pts, while the Veteran stays at 10 or 11. Something like that.
Unless somehow the community decides to jump to 2500 or 3000 point games as a result, I admit I am pretty bummed about this change. I really enjoyed the points costs getting lowered and having more diversity in the amount and variety of models in my army and my opponent's army. I appreciate that they want to make the game faster but I was really hoping they could do that through rules changes rather than just be forcing people to bring less models.
I am also skeptical that they will get the granularity right, if the Cultist versus Intercessor comparison is anything to go by....those changes seem really off, at least for 8th, to the detriment of the Chaos player.
Mr Morden wrote: Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.
That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.
Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!
Sarcasm noted, and then discarded as useless to actual discussion.
The playtesting group for 8th was clearly smaller than the one for 9th. IIRC they said they had one for each game type...and that was basically it. 9th looks like it has a nice range of playtesting groups, some of which cover multiple game types (like Tabletop Tactics).
Look, GW can always screw this up, but putting the cart before the horse doesn't promote discussion, it just leads to one of many "the sky is falling" panic attacks this board is known for everytime any change is announced.
It isn't a panic. It's known they will inevitably screw up. I don't need to play 9th to know it will end up the same as 4th-8th. It's what GW does for a living. Essentially you're saying "give them a 5th chance!" after the last several editions.
"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."
I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.
So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.
Yes. I think people like round numbers. 1500 as the standard lasted for a long long time and I think 2000 will last a long time as well. It's all just psychology, but I think it'll make the 2000 as a standard full sized game stick even with a few less models. I don't think we'll see too many events going to 2250. 8th has had issues with games at events finishing in a timely manner and I don't think we'll see any resistance to a lower model count 2000 points.
Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!
Sarcasm noted, and then discarded as useless to actual discussion.
The playtesting group for 8th was clearly smaller than the one for 9th. IIRC they said they had one for each game type...and that was basically it. 9th looks like it has a nice range of playtesting groups, some of which cover multiple game types (like Tabletop Tactics).
Look, GW can always screw this up, but putting the cart before the horse doesn't promote discussion, it just leads to one of many "the sky is falling" panic attacks this board is known for everytime any change is announced.
It isn't a panic. It's known they will inevitably screw up. I don't need to play 9th to know it will end up the same as 4th-8th. It's what GW does for a living. Essentially you're saying "give them a 5th chance!" after the last several editions.
I'm saying that things are actually different now than they were in the past, so it's less "give them a chance" and more "let's see what they actually do before saying they screwed it all up".
