According to a new GW article, they decided to raise unit point values for every faction, hoping to make smaller and faster games:
“ 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’.”
Make plenty of sense to me two main reasons:
1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.
2. I think the points reductions have really lead to armies being too big. Alpha strikes have gotten too strong, and that's partly as a function of that army size. And also you get to basically bring everything and the kitchen sink right now and that really reduces list-building tradeoffs with many armies.
rbstr wrote: Make plenty of sense to me two main reasons:
1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.
2. I think the points reductions have really lead to armies being too big. Alpha strikes have gotten too strong, and that's partly as a function of that army size. And also you get to basically bring everything and the kitchen sink right now and that really reduces list-building tradeoffs with many armies.
I dig the points bump but reserve judgement until the width & breadth of the adjustments is known.
I find it ironic that Intercessors are now the same cost they were when 8th launched. They were terrible back then but 20 points now, with all their crazy buffs, might be more reasonable.
I think upping points in general is good. Games had become far too big at the end of 8th. Looking at my typical army from the first 6 months of 8th and comparing it to now I was often getting an extra unit and extra character in my more recent armies and the general power level of everything had increased as well. I'll be interested to see what happens to bad units. I suspect most will stay the same points as now, with the better things from each faction being increased. I hope they stick to this philosophy throughout 9th.
I want to see the whole picture before before jumping to conlclusions, but at first glance it does seem that the intercessor comes off better than the cultist.
I think the new cultist points seems about right, giving a bit more room at the lower end, but I would have expected the intercessor to have gone up by more.
Didn't go far enough. I would double or triple all costs and basic game size. Then up some % each point cost up to reduce model counts in games and then adjust for balance.
But better than nothing though unsurprisingly point costs shown are for marine favouring.
I also like the point increase. You cant give a model 5.5 pts., if 5 is too cheap, and 6 is too expensive. Increasing the points for everything gives more wiggle room for adjustments. I also agree that doubling or tripling would have been even better.
Now. If only there were a 1500 point level standard, on 8x4tables, with realistic terrain interactions, slower aberage movement, no random charge distances, and tanks that cant be hurt with boltpistols ...
p5freak wrote: I also like the point increase. You cant give a model 5.5 pts., if 5 is too cheap, and 6 is too expensive. Increasing the points for everything gives more wiggle room for adjustments. I also agree that doubling or tripling would have been even better.
I don't know if doubling/tripling would have been necessary, but if we assume that the Intercessor is the default MEQ that things are balanced around, I'd have like to have seen it at 30pts, like the Tactical Marines were back in 2nd ed. I think this would have given enough room below for the various types of GEQ.
Smaller games is a good thing. Fair play to GW for choosing player experience over short term profit, seems there may really have been a change in thinking (as well as PR) in the upper echelons.
jeff white wrote: Now. If only there were a 1500 point level standard, on 8x4tables, with realistic terrain interactions, slower aberage movement, no random charge distances, and tanks that cant be hurt with boltpistols ...
You mean 30k? I am seriously considering moving to 30k; sure 9th might reduce a bit the super gamey moves, but I do not like the streamlining.
It appears that GW is moving towards a dual system: 30k / old world vs 40k / AoS; wargame vs board game.
tneva82 wrote: Didn't go far enough. I would double or triple all costs and basic game size. Then up some % each point cost up to reduce model counts in games and then adjust for balance.
But better than nothing though unsurprisingly point costs shown are for marine favouring.
That would render some units unusable. My Vendetta would be nearly 750 points. My vulture would be nearly 600 points.
rbstr wrote: Make plenty of sense to me two main reasons:
1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.
2. I think the points reductions have really lead to armies being too big. Alpha strikes have gotten too strong, and that's partly as a function of that army size. And also you get to basically bring everything and the kitchen sink right now and that really reduces list-building tradeoffs with many armies.
It won't make any difference, people will just move the standard game size up to match the points cost increase. this is NOT a skirmish game and has not been since 2nd ed. that is what games like kill teams and necromunda are for in the 40K line. (not to mention all the alternate game systems by other companies). players expect 40K to be played in larger scale. nobody is going to want to NOT use all the minis they have collected for their army.
The strong alpha strike is not even related to the size of the army, it is directly tied to GW increasing the output through core rules. twin linked? nope now you get double the number of shot. last 4 editions the assault cannon got 4 shots...now it has 6, rapid fire weapon? stand still and get all your shots. storm bolter yeah that's a "rapid fire" weapon now. etc...etc...etc...
My 30K army has more minis in it that my 40K army does because they went the other way and reduced the points. but since it is based in a previouos edition there are not as many shots being fired and far less wounds to remove. so it still takes an hour or two to do a 2k game.
jeff white wrote: Now. If only there were a 1500 point level standard, on 8x4tables, with realistic terrain interactions, slower aberage movement, no random charge distances, and tanks that cant be hurt with boltpistols ...
You mean 30k? I am seriously considering moving to 30k; sure 9th might reduce a bit the super gamey moves, but I do not like the streamlining.
It appears that GW is moving towards a dual system: 30k / old world vs 40k / AoS; wargame vs board game.
He means any version of the game you like from 3rd-7th. i personally prefer 5th or 30K- both are still better than 8th in my book especially with a few house rules (like not using the dice pool nonsense from fantasy for psykers in 30K).
rbstr wrote: Make plenty of sense to me two main reasons: 1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning. 2. I think the points reductions have really lead to armies being too big. Alpha strikes have gotten too strong, and that's partly as a function of that army size. And also you get to basically bring everything and the kitchen sink right now and that really reduces list-building tradeoffs with many armies.
It won't make any difference, people will just move the standard game size up to match the points cost increase. this is NOT a skirmish game and has not been since 2nd ed. that is what games like kill teams and necromunda are for in the 40K line. (not to mention all the alternate game systems by other companies). players expect 40K to be played in larger scale. nobody is going to want to NOT use all the minis they have collected for their army.
The strong alpha strike is not even related to the size of the army, it is directly tied to GW increasing the output through core rules. twin linked? nope now you get double the number of shot. last 4 editions the assault cannon got 4 shots...now it has 6, rapid fire weapon? stand still and get all your shots. storm bolter yeah that's a "rapid fire" weapon now. etc...etc...etc...
My 30K army has more minis in it that my 40K army does because they went the other way and reduced the points. but since it is based in a previouos edition there are not as many shots being fired and far less wounds to remove. so it still takes an hour or two to do a 2k game.
I don't want to use all my models in a single army. I much preferred playing 8th ed at 1000-1250pts and I'm looking forward to 2000 pts in 9th if it means meaningful decision as to what units I take rather than just being able to have everything powerful in triple.
Most people don't have excessive model unless they have been collecting for more than a decade. they slowly build up to a full size 2k army. as such they intend to play with the models they designed their force around.
You may prefer to switch things out or play smaller, but most people want to use the toys in their collection.
I was elated at the news, but got my first doubts when they allwed vigilus and PA to remain alongside the dexes in play.
the pricehike on all units i find a good thing, it allows for better design space but coupled with my point above i fail to see how it is justifyable that a distinctly not worth beyond CP generation former unit get's a 50% hike whilest the arguably best troop unit with all it's buffs remaining just get 17%.
Increased granularity by increasing the scale I think is certainly welcomed by most players.
I think the main concerns that people have is the points previews GW has chosen to show us doesn't make then look like a good change for improving balance. I just wish GW would give us more of the picture as the little they are showing isn't painting the best picture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: I was elated at the news, but got my first doubts when they allwed vigilus and PA to remain alongside the dexes in play.
the pricehike on all units i find a good thing, it allows for better design space but coupled with my point above i fail to see how it is justifyable that a distinctly not worth beyond CP generation former unit get's a 50% hike whilest the arguably best troop unit with all it's buffs remaining just get 17%.
PA I can understand still being an thing but Vigilus still living is infuriating as it has some of the most broken things in it.
All we can hope for now is that they recost those detachments and strategums as some of them are crazy powerful for their cost.
Hopefully a new edition can also provide a hard reset for the "normal" points value of a game. I think one of the problems 40k has had over the last few editions is a gradual increase in game size, often because many major tournaments refused to drop their points limit despite the number of problems it was starting to cause. Maybe setting a slightly lower points limit will also help reduce lethality a bit by limiting the availability of powerful combos and forcing hard decisions in army building rather than "I'll just take everything".
Dai wrote: Smaller games is a good thing. Fair play to GW for choosing player experience over short term profit, seems there may really have been a change in thinking (as well as PR) in the upper echelons.
eh they upped points in 8th ed as well. Nothing new here. We have 2 instances of complete repointing(3rd and 8th) in past. It's 50-50 was it overall reduced(3rd) or increased(8th)
tneva82 wrote: Didn't go far enough. I would double or triple all costs and basic game size. Then up some % each point cost up to reduce model counts in games and then adjust for balance.
But better than nothing though unsurprisingly point costs shown are for marine favouring.
That would render some units unusable. My Vendetta would be nearly 750 points. My vulture would be nearly 600 points.
Eh guess you missed where I said double or triple base game size. You wouldn't be playing 2k game. You would be playing 4k or 6k. 600 pts from 6k is not same as 600 from 2000.
Point would be to add granularity especially on bottom side. The way 8th ed was going grots were being pushed to being 2 or 1 pts model...And at that small points it breaks down. So go for say 9 pts for grot and where people played 2k now they would play 6k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: Hopefully a new edition can also provide a hard reset for the "normal" points value of a game. I think one of the problems 40k has had over the last few editions is a gradual increase in game size, often because many major tournaments refused to drop their points limit despite the number of problems it was starting to cause. Maybe setting a slightly lower points limit will also help reduce lethality a bit by limiting the availability of powerful combos and forcing hard decisions in army building rather than "I'll just take everything".
That's something GW doesn't really have control but seems they still are for 2k. But the point cost hike helps. Unless players up the point levels...but that's players decision. Not GW. Gw can't really force certainl point size. GW upped points in 8th resulting in less models fielded. Players then upped to get what they had before. Doh.
If it results in greater granularity then it has the potential to be beneficial.
Simply increasing the points cost does nothing to make the game cheaper. If GW had carried on with 8th Ed and simply doubled the points value of all the units, tournaments would likely have responded by upping their games to 4K; in my experience, established players pick the size of game mostly on the basis of how much time they want to spend.
They know that if they advertise a 1500 point even, the draw would not be as good as a 2000 point event.
So they raise points up to make it a 1500 point game, even though your spend 2000 points.
I've always found the game goes for just as long.
Way to screw me again GW. If I wasnt so invested, I'd drop out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: Hopefully a new edition can also provide a hard reset for the "normal" points value of a game. I think one of the problems 40k has had over the last few editions is a gradual increase in game size, often because many major tournaments refused to drop their points limit despite the number of problems it was starting to cause. Maybe setting a slightly lower points limit will also help reduce lethality a bit by limiting the availability of powerful combos and forcing hard decisions in army building rather than "I'll just take everything".
My local area is lucky to have had 2-3 tournaments a month with pretty good turn outs. We use chess clocks, but even before then, there were not too many problems.
Just keep things the same and say X is tournament size and see what turns out....don't try to fool people into thinking they are playing a 2000 point game and its really 1500.
rbstr wrote: Make plenty of sense to me two main reasons:
1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.
2. I think the points reductions have really lead to armies being too big. Alpha strikes have gotten too strong, and that's partly as a function of that army size. And also you get to basically bring everything and the kitchen sink right now and that really reduces list-building tradeoffs with many armies.
This basically says it all. More room for balance adjustments and less scattered tables are both welcome.
Of course, with a huge change to all points like that, the beginning of 9th is going to be a mess. But at least we know that GW is not shy of stepping in and adjusting things in this age.
harlokin wrote: If it results in greater granularity then it has the potential to be beneficial.
Simply increasing the points cost does nothing to make the game cheaper. If GW had carried on with 8th Ed and simply doubled the points value of all the units, tournaments would likely have responded by upping their games to 4K; in my experience, established players pick the size of game mostly on the basis of how much time they want to spend.
My biggest fear as well. GW finally gives some bone to players to make armies cheaper and players themselves then negate the gain(and then complain how 40k is so expensive)
harlokin wrote: If it results in greater granularity then it has the potential to be beneficial.
Simply increasing the points cost does nothing to make the game cheaper. If GW had carried on with 8th Ed and simply doubled the points value of all the units, tournaments would likely have responded by upping their games to 4K; in my experience, established players pick the size of game mostly on the basis of how much time they want to spend.
My biggest fear as well. GW finally gives some bone to players to make armies cheaper and players themselves then negate the gain(and then complain how 40k is so expensive)
They know that if they advertise a 1500 point even, the draw would not be as good as a 2000 point event.
So they raise points up to make it a 1500 point game, even though your spend 2000 points.
I've always found the game goes for just as long.
Way to screw me again GW. If I wasnt so invested, I'd drop out. /quote]
Eh GW makes player friendly move and you complain? You really enjoy spending more money?
I think his objection is that now that he can't field his entire 2000 point army he hass been made to have "Wasted" his money. because we all know everyone buys a 2000 point list exactly and stops purchasing.... ohh wait no one does that
He means any version of the game you like from 3rd-7th. i personally prefer 5th or 30K- both are still better than 8th in my book especially with a few house rules (like not using the dice pool nonsense from fantasy for psykers in 30K).
Right! I come from the light wargaming era of WH40k and I dislike all the streamlining of 8th. AoS in particular felt really bad, it is even simpler than wh40k.
I am surprised there aren't more tourneys for 30k; I guess sadly it mixes different rules with different model lines (and crazy expensive ones).
It depends on how they handle hordes. It seems like they're penalizing massed cheap troops heavily this edition so if they end up being too expensive to run while being to easy to kill I won't be very happy.
Speaking from the smaller end of the scale( 500 pts or less ), I don't mind so long as the larger units can field half their current minimum model count.
I find it strange that Kabalites can have 5 models, but Guardians are a minimum of 10. Back in the old days(3rd edition, which was rather good), this was reversed. Which is a bit pointless these days as both are now practically the same and packing heavy support weapons. I really don't see the point of 10 guardians babysitting a heavy platform, when five of them could be off doing better things - or even becoming a small storm-squad. Speaking of which, when did they change the minimum counts for the Guardians?
And what in the name of Eldrad happened to our Black Guardians!? I demand justice!
Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...
Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...
Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?
Yeah 8th edition which technically catered to any size of game doesn't really become a functional game for most codex's untill you pass 1000 points.
Many codex's don't actually become functionally powerful until you hit 1500 to 2000 points.
A 500 point game is esentially bordering on Killteams reason for being, a 500 point game is going to be 1-2 units and a charictor or 2 thats all. Your asking for a change that while making sence for you would have massive implications for all other sizes of game.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah 8th edition which technically catered to any size of game doesn't really become a functional game for most codex's untill you pass 1000 points.
Many codex's don't actually become functionally powerful until you hit 1500 to 2000 points.
A 500 point game is esentially bordering on Killteams reason for being, a 500 point game is going to be 1-2 units and a charictor or 2 thats all. Your asking for a change that while making sence for you would have massive implications for all other sizes of game.
And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.
Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...
Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?
...with a 4+ invulnerable save, +1 wound, a decent melee weapon and also...gasp!...a Psyker! They are also quite the fashion statement too, with those fetching robes and witchblades....
Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...
Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?
...with a 4+ invulnerable save, +1 wound, a decent melee weapon and also...gasp!...a Psyker! They are also quite the fashion statement too, with those fetching robes and witchblades....
Realistically we will just end up seeing another 2-3 years worth of points deflation over time as GW makes adjustments just like we saw with 8th. My original 2000 point militarum tempestus list at the start of 8th is currently worth ~1700 points after all the adjustments that were made over the course of the edition, I can see similar trends occurred in my various other armies. I have no reason to believe that this trend won't continue, in general points adjustments are a gakky way to attempt to balance the game as it produces a ripple effect across the game with nth order consequences. It would be far better to try to balance by adjusting stats/abilities instead, reserving point adjustments as a point of last resort.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Points should be changed in relation to balance, not to game size. You should pay the points for what something is worth.
Thats now how points or balance works though. Its a common perception that increased granularity means better fine tuning, etc. but points are designed to achieve balance at the army level (specifically within a target "balance point" range, for example 1500-2000 pts), not at the unit level - as such small fine-tuning adjustments are largely pointless and subject to diminishing returns. There are too many external factors that cannot easily be accounted for that factor in to a units effectiveness/relative balance. Strategems, relics, inter-unit synergy for example. Some of these things have a multiplicative effect on the effectiveness of a model or a unit if they are taken in conjunction - for this to be accurately reflected in the "worth" of the unit you are paying for, then it couldn't have a fixed points value, etc. This is why balance doesn't really scale well/is subject to fluctuation with game size, you see this at the extreme ends of the spectrum - at 500 points different armies dominate the meta than at 2000 points, and at 5000 points its another game altogether.
1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.
Likewise, the idea that a larger points scale allows for better granularity or resolution/fine tuning is also a myth. Points are a limiting mechanic for army construction, it doesn't matter if bumping the cost of one of these units by 1 point per model makes it 20-30% more expensive, so long as, at a zoomed out level, a 2000 pt army (or whatever the "balance point" may be) averages to an approx. 50/50 win/loss. There are "internal balance" issues that need to be addressed, in terms of relative points efficiencies, but that never really goes away and can be offset in other ways.
Theres a growing number of games out there that use much smaller point scales (up to 100 pts) that have significantly greater internal and external balance than most games that use larger scales like 40k and AoS. Warmachine/Hordes and Team Yankee/FoWv4, for example, are two that come o mind immediately.
And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.
Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?
rbstr wrote: Make plenty of sense to me two main reasons:
1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.
2. I think the points reductions have really lead to armies being too big. Alpha strikes have gotten too strong, and that's partly as a function of that army size. And also you get to basically bring everything and the kitchen sink right now and that really reduces list-building tradeoffs with many armies.
This basically says it all. More room for balance adjustments and less scattered tables are both welcome.
Of course, with a huge change to all points like that, the beginning of 9th is going to be a mess. But at least we know that GW is not shy of stepping in and adjusting things in this age.
They should be shy because they're expecting people to still pay for their printed product.
And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.
Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?
Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.
p5freak wrote: I also like the point increase. You cant give a model 5.5 pts., if 5 is too cheap, and 6 is too expensive. Increasing the points for everything gives more wiggle room for adjustments. I also agree that doubling or tripling would have been even better.
You can't you use 5.5? Just round final fractions of 0.5 up.
Guess I'll be in the minority and say "no", I don't like it. When they launched 8th, they claimed it was a very "fast playing edition". Speed of play was an early selling point. Most of us saw, almost instantly, (and even when we were still playing index 40k), that this wasn't the case. Yes, the rules were streamlined, but even smaller games were NOT going faster. This had nothing to do with game size and everything to do with the fact that, when you have so many re-rolls, you're essentially playing the game twice in one sitting (side note - also kind of proves they really weren't play testing like they claimed. Stuff like this happened all through 8th ed. You have to wonder what Reece and co were ACTUALLY doing because one would think they would have caught stuff like this but I digress).
Add in the 50 million extra strats most armies got once the codexes came out, and the auras that gave even MORE rerolls and forget about it. The game became slow as feth. Under the same, or similar rules system, games are still going to take too long. Even at smaller sizes. Increasing points across the board just further punishes armies like Death Guard and Space Wolves who are already too expensive. It's classic GW. I swear if the rules team was a Doctor's office instead of a rules team, and you went in with a case of exercise induced vertigo, they would solve it by cutting off your legs to keep you from working out.
And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.
Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?
Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.
Apoc was always advertised as 3K+ even in the original 2007 release, people played higher, but GW always advertised the ruleset for pretty much taking a 2K army and adding a Titan or other superheavy with a bit of extra support and going up from there.
Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.
12K games!
I think that would be like a maniple from Adeptus Titanicus!
I think that sounds about right, but I never did own the actual original Apocalypse book, someone else in my old playgroup did. But I do recall that our first Apoc game was 10,000 points of my Necrons vs a combination 10,000 points of Guard and Ultramarines. It is why I bought and built five Monoliths to run that datasheet for a Phalanx (or whatever it was called). Despite them having a Thunderhawk with a D-cannon, I still ended up winning that game. That was still with the 3rd edition codex for Necrons though, so with all the new 5th Edition stuff, I'm sure fielding 12k points would be pretty easy.
I don't think point increases are necessarily bad, it all depends on the relative adjustments to each other, not relative to up or down in isolation though.
And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.
Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?
Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.
Apoc was always advertised as 3K+ even in the original 2007 release, people played higher, but GW always advertised the ruleset for pretty much taking a 2K army and adding a Titan or other superheavy with a bit of extra support and going up from there.
Did a Titan cost 2k points back then though?
Play war warhound these days and you have 1k points left.
Appocolypse seems to be more aimed at the 4-5k range now, with 40k going up to that.
Speaking of which GW for the love of resin can you please give us fair points for our forgeworld models please, it sucks when your model costing twice as much as a codex model has the same defence and less offence.
Would also be nice if you adressed the similar issue of different codex's paying 5 times the points for the same firepower.
I don't see this as a guarantee of anything changing. If just problem units were changed then it would be a fix but as everything is being raised then there's nothing stopping the standard point value being raised to render any change pointless.
Overall I like it, still building an army, so I'm going to stop for a bit and see how what I already have works out to be. But saving me a few $ in the short term might not be all that bad (though after shelling out for the rulebook, it might end up a wash anyway!)
Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...
Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?
...with a 4+ invulnerable save, +1 wound, a decent melee weapon and also...gasp!...a Psyker! They are also quite the fashion statement too, with those fetching robes and witchblades....
Point taken
Yeah, I would not mind if it were an actual option to use a warlock's invulnerable save to protect a guardian unit. I would not mind them functioning more like Aspiring Sorcerors than what they are currently, a totally redundant unit thanks to the existence of the spiritseer or a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLY overpriced all-psykers unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kcalehc wrote: Overall I like it, still building an army, so I'm going to stop for a bit and see how what I already have works out to be. But saving me a few $ in the short term might not be all that bad (though after shelling out for the rulebook, it might end up a wash anyway!)
If it's like 8th, you should be able to use the free core rules they put out pretty effectively. I don't think I ever bought an 8th ed BRB.
On one hand, we had really nowhere to go on the bottom end of points.
On the other hand, I'm a fluff player who has a hard time fitting everything I want to take into my armies already. I always build my armies around 3000 points anyway. I don't like the idea of not being able to take that extra unit.
I guess I'll never understand people's desire for small quick games.
When I set up any game I want it to be epic. Like watching the LotR trilogy in one sitting.
Yeah, I already do. Thats my point. So I will be losing models.
I guess I could bump it up even further. I dunno. We'll see how this shakes out. We'll probably see massive points drops anyway with each chapter approved.
I don't play points, but even I'm on board with increasing points across the board. If everything has more points, 1 point makes less of a difference, so balance can be less *drastic*. I mean, if a Space Marine was 10 points, and you change their cost by 1 point, that's a 10% change. If Space Marines are 20 points, and you change their cost by 1 point, that's a 5% change.
It doesn't mean that armies need to get smaller. You just change what size you choose to play at.
In all fairness, that's actually a gripe I just have generally with people complaining "40k's too big/too small" - there's nothing stopping you playing at 1000 points or 3000 points or whatever size you prefer.
Brutus_Apex wrote:
So just play 3K in the new system.
Yeah, I already do. Thats my point. So I will be losing models.
Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.
I have only seen 100+ model armies from Orks I believe, despite going to tournaments. The big tournaments don't seem to have had lots of time issues since introducing chess clocks. It's trying to fix a problem that wasn't a real problem anymore.
I like more granularity. I dislike 'across the board' hikes. Custodes could already barely make a TAC. You just hike everything 20%-50% and they're gonna be in real trouble.
Sabotage! wrote: Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.
I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.
Sabotage! wrote: Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.
I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.
I'm confused. If each model costs more points, then I have less models I can fit within the point limit. If I'm a 2000 point tournament player and each of my models costs 5 more points, I'll have to choose some models to drop from that list. It'll also have a meta-shift. If the hordes player has to drop a couple dozen grunts to make things work, horde armies become much weaker to attrition than they were previously, while elite small-model count armies don't lose out as much. I might shift my own firepower away from being as hordes-focused as it was in 8th.
So just looking at the jumps of intercessors vs cultists, it looks like the average point level is going up about 20% with the worst increases, percentage wise, happening to the cheapest units.
Sabotage! wrote: Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.
I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.
Because the hike will not be so big as to make people abandon the 2k rang. Going over 2k means changing table, changing missions, changing CPs.... It's not just a simple number incresase.
Audustum wrote: I have only seen 100+ model armies from Orks I believe, despite going to tournaments. The big tournaments don't seem to have had lots of time issues since introducing chess clocks. It's trying to fix a problem that wasn't a real problem anymore.
I like more granularity. I dislike 'across the board' hikes. Custodes could already barely make a TAC. You just hike everything 20%-50% and they're gonna be in real trouble.
You're ignoring the fact that A. Not all tournaments have chess clocks, and B. Most of those games still only make it to turn 3, they just end up having the non-ork player getting a free turn or two in depending on how slow the Ork player is. Hell, a big part of why the Harlequin player in the semi-finals or w/e got creamed as hard as he did was because he had to rush out his last 2-3 turns in like 15 total minutes to not give the IH guy free time.
Time is still an issue with Chess Clocks, it's just not as UNFAIR of an issue.
Sabotage! wrote: Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.
I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.
I'm confused. If each model costs more points, then I have less models I can fit within the point limit. If I'm a 2000 point tournament player and each of my models costs 5 more points, I'll have to choose some models to drop from that list. It'll also have a meta-shift. If the hordes player has to drop a couple dozen grunts to make things work, horde armies become much weaker to attrition than they were previously, while elite small-model count armies don't lose out as much. I might shift my own firepower away from being as hordes-focused as it was in 8th.
Because that 2'000 point total wasn't handed down by god. It is simply an army size that allows for a certain amount of customisation and decsion making, while providing a game that can be completed within a certain time period. To my mind, doubling the points cost of units across the board, all other things being equal, would simply result in 4'000 point tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: So just looking at the jumps of intercessors vs cultists, it looks like the average point level is going up about 20% with the worst increases, percentage wise, happening to the cheapest units.
Sabotage! wrote: Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.
I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.
Basic understanding of how math works?
Amazing that you can't ask a reasonable question without someone acting like a witch.
Sabotage! wrote: Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.
I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.
I'm confused. If each model costs more points, then I have less models I can fit within the point limit. If I'm a 2000 point tournament player and each of my models costs 5 more points, I'll have to choose some models to drop from that list. It'll also have a meta-shift. If the hordes player has to drop a couple dozen grunts to make things work, horde armies become much weaker to attrition than they were previously, while elite small-model count armies don't lose out as much. I might shift my own firepower away from being as hordes-focused as it was in 8th.
Because that 2'000 point total wasn't handed down by god. It is simply an army size that allows for a certain amount of customisation and decsion making, while providing a game that can be completed within a certain time period. To my mind, doubling the points cost of units across the board, all other things being equal, would simply result in 4'000 point tournaments.
Couple of reasons this isn't true:
1. It isn't double. It's MAYBE 20% on the whole and it's already shown to not be evenly distributed. Some of the units that are severe underperformers may see no increases at all. There's no reason to adjust tournament sizes when any adjustment that would be made is ultimately just some arbitrary (and small) amount of 'Up'.
2. Games were getting too big as it is, at least at the tournament level. Even with chess clocks, a lot of armies face a significant time crunch in 2:45 to 3 hour games, especially for people who are still in the process of really learning the nuances of their army (i.e. locals.)
3. People like round numbers. 2000 is a good standard to have because it's simple and easy. Sure, 2134 may be more accurate to the overall size and scope of the game now, but that's an ugly value to build a list to. Same as it's been in the last couple of CAs that saw mostly across the board drops.
4. The new CP system means that going up 1 point would net another 6CP, which isn't technically handed down by god either, but GW is as close as it gets for 40k. Pretty much only the ITC has the influence to overrule them on a large scale and even then, only in certain regions of North America.
Audustum wrote: I have only seen 100+ model armies from Orks I believe, despite going to tournaments. The big tournaments don't seem to have had lots of time issues since introducing chess clocks. It's trying to fix a problem that wasn't a real problem anymore.
It addresses a problem that events were forced to introduce an element outside the rules to address (the clock), which also impacted people from bringing certain kinds of armies due to time issues. Now the issue might able to be addressed within the scope of the game without potentially having to artificially effectively ban certain types of army builds as the scope in general will be smaller.
I like more granularity. I dislike 'across the board' hikes. Custodes could already barely make a TAC. You just hike everything 20%-50% and they're gonna be in real trouble.
You can't get more granularity by only increasing cost on some units, otherwise it's just a straight nerf to those units and you just move the granularity issue up the cost range. Everything will go up, and most armies will have to cut some things. We'll have to see where everything ends up.
Spoletta wrote: Because the hike will not be so big as to make people abandon the 2k rang. Going over 2k means changing table, changing missions, changing CPs.... It's not just a simple number incresase.
Yeah, it sounds like there's a lot of moving pieces involved here, and that there's still a fair bit to be unveiled.
As pretty much anything depends on how it is handled. But I'd regard it as a positive move, since as stated it gives more room for precise point adjustement, and at the same time won't necesseraly change the fact you can still play 40K-ish overssized carnage games as well, just have to double the minimal amount of point per side I guess!
We've not seen enough to make any kind of judgement yet.
Intercessor weapons could be going up whilst auto guns are free which changes the relative value of the units significantly, we've just got to be patient and see the whole picture before making any real judgements.
I would be glad they are increasing the points cost of everything, allows for finer tuning - but GW will just use it as a springboard to drop points with each book release to spur buying more models/sell more books & CA.
IMHO (and this is important to read that it is indeed my opinion) from what ive seen of 9th I have zero intrest in playing it. Its the first edition to have this effect on me. OP shooting hasn't been addressed and that should have been one of the first problems tackled and previewed.
This point increase, im hoping, does not translate to the sales they think it will. Perhaps it will. If I want a small game ill play a 1000 point game. Raising unit points across the board is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen come out of GW. And they have had some really, really, really bad takes in the past.
And while I will certainly wait to see the rules in full before retiring my armies for the edition...this is the first time I have had very little hope.
The point of raising the pts value is to have more room.
That way you can have more granularity between guardsmen, conscripts, cultists and termagants instead of all of them costing the same
People will likely play "bigger" games to make up for the increased cost, so I doubt the number of models will actually change.
jeff white wrote:Now. If only there were a 1500 point level standard, on 8x4tables, with realistic terrain interactions, slower aberage movement, no random charge distances, and tanks that cant be hurt with boltpistols ...
I have that now because I still play 3rd Ed.
Vector Strike wrote:In general, yes. Less miniatures means a cheaper game. I'm starting a new army, so it is really good.
However, it also must come with balance.
Actually, you're on to something. Price hikes across the board for models happens right as they're announcing less models to use in games, can't be a coincidence.
If this means that more games would be under 2000pts, in todays points, it would be great. If it means we are going to play 3000 as the new standard, making the new games the same old 2000pts games or more points it is going to be not so fun.
On one hand, we had really nowhere to go on the bottom end of points.
On the other hand, I'm a fluff player who has a hard time fitting everything I want to take into my armies already. I always build my armies around 3000 points anyway. I don't like the idea of not being able to take that extra unit.
I guess I'll never understand people's desire for small quick games.
When I set up any game I want it to be epic. Like watching the LotR trilogy in one sitting.
Well I don't have 8'x6' board and 6'x4' is already too cramped in 8th ed 2k games. Been too cramped for several editions already. Removes importance from movement and makes game less strategic, more of just roll dices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: All raising the pts values is going to do in my circles is to potentially cause our "standard" games to be played at a higher pt value.
I hope your group isn't going to complain about price of 40k in money? Because that would be two faced thing. GW makes it cheaper, players make it more expensive and then complain about cost of armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Table wrote: IMHO (and this is important to read that it is indeed my opinion) from what ive seen of 9th I have zero intrest in playing it. Its the first edition to have this effect on me. OP shooting hasn't been addressed and that should have been one of the first problems tackled and previewed.
This point increase, im hoping, does not translate to the sales they think it will. Perhaps it will. If I want a small game ill play a 1000 point game. Raising unit points across the board is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen come out of GW. And they have had some really, really, really bad takes in the past.
And while I will certainly wait to see the rules in full before retiring my armies for the edition...this is the first time I have had very little hope.
You a) enjoy idea of 1 pts grots(as that's where they were heading with all the price drops) for HUGE swarms b) enjoy spending more money to models?
lowering the points for "smaller games" is a GW fallacy. People already have the models, they will just up the points for their games so they can use the same models.
And anyways, GW will keep reducing points in each future book anyways, so we'll be right back where we started by the time they're ready to roll out 10th ed.
This is all just smoke and mirrors folks. Granting "official" permission to do the things folks have already doing for editions.
On one hand, we had really nowhere to go on the bottom end of points.
On the other hand, I'm a fluff player who has a hard time fitting everything I want to take into my armies already. I always build my armies around 3000 points anyway. I don't like the idea of not being able to take that extra unit.
I guess I'll never understand people's desire for small quick games.
When I set up any game I want it to be epic. Like watching the LotR trilogy in one sitting.
Sir, you speak to my heart. I’ve only ever played 2k games because that’s what everyone does. One day my dreams may come true.
I think it's going to do much good. No idea who liked bringing 200+ models to the tables, if you're just gonna remove half of them anyway at the end of battle round 1. Yes people liked playing with all their toys, but really, were you playing with them if you just brought them out to remove them and put them back in the box?
Though, apparently one of the play testers said that his primaris marine army only lost like one squad in the transition from 8th to 9th, and we know that primaris marine themselves only increased by like 3 points. However, cultist increased by a whooping 50% points. So either swarm are getting nerfed to hell, or there's some marine bias and they will be very, very good!
The minimum table size will probably kill the shift towards playing larger points games to make up for the points increases. Of course, they are just guidelines and people will play however they want, but for many I suspect the "official guidance" which says to play 3000 point games on a table which is effectively 4'x8' or larger will probably be a deal breaker, especially for tournament organizers which tend to favor squeezing more players in by using smaller table sizes - its why 40k went from a 4x8 table recommendation in 4th edition to 4x6 in 5th.
I think it’s a little too early to decide if it’s good or bad. But according to some of the more experienced players that have been helping me understand the game, Custodes, Grey knights, and Imperial Knights for example don’t really need a point increase given how much they cost already. Whereas certain horde armies are likely to be hit much harder by this.
Yes but only if its done fairly consistently and balanced across all the faction. Simply so I dont have to remove as many models off the board right after putting them there. My T3 1w 5+ troops don't last long..
However... the likely hood of this happening in reality by GW? I would say maybe 5%. And im being generous.
On one hand, we had really nowhere to go on the bottom end of points.
On the other hand, I'm a fluff player who has a hard time fitting everything I want to take into my armies already. I always build my armies around 3000 points anyway. I don't like the idea of not being able to take that extra unit.
I guess I'll never understand people's desire for small quick games.
When I set up any game I want it to be epic. Like watching the LotR trilogy in one sitting.
Reducing the effective points allotment has many beneficial effects:
1: Shorter playtime. This means that you're more likely to actually finish the game before somebody has to go home, and you can finish multiple games under pressure in tournament settings. How many large apocalypse-scale games have you played that amounted to setting up huge armies for like 2-3 hours and then playing for 2 turns? Actually playing the game is a lot more fun than any sense of epic-ness.
2: Less intense startup. The cost of starting an army is high, reducing the model count of standard play allows new players to more easily enter into the hobby and for players to pick up new armies.
3: Less crowded board. The board is just too small for many armies right now; I've played games where I literally have no place to put down another vehicle between terrain and the small board size relative to army size. Reducing the crowing also opens up more freedom for position and maneuver and makes it matter more, since there's both room to do it and you can not longer have everything everywhere.
4: Finally, with lower allotment for things to bring, you also have to make more careful consideration of exactly what you're going to bring and how it's going to interact, and things brought are a more severe trade-off to what else could have been brought, so there's more care and depth to the planning and strategic part of the game too.
Obviously, there's a point where the game is too small, but I think that the current 2k is too big. Really, I think the past 1875 was too big.
You realise we have topics now that complain about the game basically being over and decided by turn 2 because the lethality and lack of terrain is to extreme.
the length of play time is directly connected to how enjoyable the game play is.
: Less intense startup. The cost of starting an army is high, reducing the model count of standard play allows new players to more easily enter into the hobby and for players to pick up new armies.
So....that's why GW just jacked prices across the board...perhaps because they know they might sell less models. does the land raider kit that has not changed in over a decade need to cost double what it used to?
3: Less crowded board. The board is just too small for many armies right now;
That's a direct result of 8th giving units huge movement increases., all the previous editions were tied into the standard 4X6 table with movmenet locked into 6" increments. the fastest non flyer unit on the table used to be eldar jet bikes that could move 24" at flat out speed and an additional d6 in the assault phase. but could do nothing else but move. everything else was tied into the 6-12" range.
he length of play time is directly connected to how enjoyable the game play is.
I dont think so. I have had very unenjoyable games that lasted 40min. And I watched 1+hour games that were so engaging, that the players and us watching didn't even notice that the game spilled over in to second hour of playing.
But of course if the game is unfun, it is better for it to be short then long.
I think this is a good move. 2000 points is a LOT of models these days, it must be a significant barrier to entry for youngsters, for the price and also the time to paint and assemble everything. The time to deploy and move around all of those models also means you'd struggle to play more than one game in a session, so if you get hammered that game then that's probably not going to be a great experience.
Compare to an online shooter game where you can play 5 or 6 games in an hour. You might get trashed once or twice but probably won't every time. You can't just try again immediately in a 2k point 40k game, so you better hope it's balanced and fun for both people
Here is why:
Its part of their lazy chapter approved "typewriter-reset" stratagy INSTEAD of fixing fundamentally flawed rules for models, they just lower and lower and lower points as years go on. Prime example Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage: 340 points at the start. And now 230 points.
And also, as others have pointed out, right out of the gate, the points raise does NOT seem fair.
You realise we have topics now that complain about the game basically being over and decided by turn 2 because the lethality and lack of terrain is to extreme.
the length of play time is directly connected to how enjoyable the game play is.
The game length in time and turn's aren't same though. T2 game ending when getting that sorted out isn't fun. T6 ending where you finish game same speed or even faster than T2 is.
And even then T2 ending at shorter time is still better than T2 with more minutes spent.
I just wonder why+17% for primaries and +50% for chaos cultists.
9th doesn't address the lethality of 8th at all. It just seem to want to nerf hordes and favour elite units.
Maybe the playtesters think there's enough D2 weapon tech to warrant it. I've often proposed that hordes need an existence tax which was left out in 7th. There is a lot of benefits to a huge number of cheap models. Look at all the marine changes to TRY to remedy this.
According to the rumors, the average price hike is 25%.
This would mean that the intercessors were buffed...
I can think of many reasons for this, but none of them truly convinces me.
- Troops no longer pay a troop "tax" because they are no longer tired to CP generation. Ok fair, but then the cultist cost raise becomes even more of an headscratcher.
- They wanted a clean and round point cost for them since they are meant to be the measurement stick for the game. Ok, seems fair... but then the 25% cost hike doesn't seem correct.
- It's a GW marketing ploy to make intercessors ultra OP and sell loads of them.... yeah no, they are the kit with the highest point to $ in the SM arsenal I think and almost every player already has quite a lot of them.
- New morale rules make elite infantry less appealing and so they see a general cost reduction? Maybe but doesn't sound really convincing.
- New cover rules advantage light infantry over heavy infantry? Yeah, maye this is the only one that seems to work.
Snake Tortoise wrote: I think this is a good move. 2000 points is a LOT of models these days, it must be a significant barrier to entry for youngsters, for the price and also the time to paint and assemble everything. The time to deploy and move around all of those models also means you'd struggle to play more than one game in a session, so if you get hammered that game then that's probably not going to be a great experience.
Compare to an online shooter game where you can play 5 or 6 games in an hour. You might get trashed once or twice but probably won't every time. You can't just try again immediately in a 2k point 40k game, so you better hope it's balanced and fun for both people
Video games are an entire different animal and not in any way comparable. DnD made that mistake with 4th ed trying to tap into the MMORPG crowd and failed miserably with one of the worst editions of the game ever made.
I'd love less models on the table.
I just wonder why+17% for primaries and +50% for chaos cultists.
9th doesn't address the lethality of 8th at all. It just seem to want to nerf hordes and favour elite units.
Ever play horus heresy?
everything is cheaper, way cheaper and better performing. my HH force is the largest i have ever fielded at 2k and it still only takes about 2 hours to play a 2k game a full 5+ turns...and it gets silly fun somtimes like vulkan pimp slapping my warhound titan to death.
It isn't just the model count, the mechanics of the edition play a big part.
Spoletta wrote: According to the rumors, the average price hike is 25%.
This would mean that the intercessors were buffed...
I can think of many reasons for this, but none of them truly convinces me.
- Troops no longer pay a troop "tax" because they are no longer tired to CP generation. Ok fair, but then the cultist cost raise becomes even more of an headscratcher.
- They wanted a clean and round point cost for them since they are meant to be the measurement stick for the game. Ok, seems fair... but then the 25% cost hike doesn't seem correct.
- It's a GW marketing ploy to make intercessors ultra OP and sell loads of them.... yeah no, they are the kit with the highest point to $ in the SM arsenal I think and almost every player already has quite a lot of them.
- New morale rules make elite infantry less appealing and so they see a general cost reduction? Maybe but doesn't sound really convincing.
- New cover rules advantage light infantry over heavy infantry? Yeah, maye this is the only one that seems to work.
Or:
Intercessor guns now cost more inflating the model cost
Their profile gets errata'd to remove some special rules
The points shown are from the v3 codex which is different again
Cultists are receiving a minor rules buff/tweak to compensate
We literally know nothing about the new points system or any altered units for 8th and people are crying how "it's not fair". People need to let go of 8th, stop comparing partial pictures of a game we've not seen and applying it to the existing framework of one that's about to become obsolete.
Having all models properly split into weapon/body cost would be a good thing IMO. Those assault bolters would be much more interesting if they were free while the other two variants cost points.
Spoletta wrote: According to the rumors, the average price hike is 25%.
This would mean that the intercessors were buffed...
I can think of many reasons for this, but none of them truly convinces me.
- Troops no longer pay a troop "tax" because they are no longer tired to CP generation. Ok fair, but then the cultist cost raise becomes even more of an headscratcher.
- They wanted a clean and round point cost for them since they are meant to be the measurement stick for the game. Ok, seems fair... but then the 25% cost hike doesn't seem correct.
- It's a GW marketing ploy to make intercessors ultra OP and sell loads of them.... yeah no, they are the kit with the highest point to $ in the SM arsenal I think and almost every player already has quite a lot of them.
- New morale rules make elite infantry less appealing and so they see a general cost reduction? Maybe but doesn't sound really convincing.
- New cover rules advantage light infantry over heavy infantry? Yeah, maye this is the only one that seems to work.
Or:
Intercessor guns now cost more inflating the model cost
Their profile gets errata'd to remove some special rules
The points shown are from the v3 codex which is different again
Cultists are receiving a minor rules buff/tweak to compensate
We literally know nothing about the new points system or any altered units for 8th and people are crying how "it's not fair". People need to let go of 8th, stop comparing partial pictures of a game we've not seen and applying it to the existing framework of one that's about to become obsolete.
Maybee they get SV 5+ and traits? or something else entirely?
I do wonder though were that leaves guardsmen.
Snake Tortoise wrote: I think this is a good move. 2000 points is a LOT of models these days, it must be a significant barrier to entry for youngsters, for the price and also the time to paint and assemble everything. The time to deploy and move around all of those models also means you'd struggle to play more than one game in a session, so if you get hammered that game then that's probably not going to be a great experience.
Compare to an online shooter game where you can play 5 or 6 games in an hour. You might get trashed once or twice but probably won't every time. You can't just try again immediately in a 2k point 40k game, so you better hope it's balanced and fun for both people
Video games are an entire different animal and not in any way comparable. DnD made that mistake with 4th ed trying to tap into the MMORPG crowd and failed miserably with one of the worst editions of the game ever made.
I'd love less models on the table.
I just wonder why+17% for primaries and +50% for chaos cultists.
9th doesn't address the lethality of 8th at all. It just seem to want to nerf hordes and favour elite units.
...and it gets silly fun somtimes like vulkan pimp slapping my warhound titan to death.
As the Lord of Drakes should
I am interested to see how troops are treated across the board.
Might be something like this;
Battle Sisters, Wyches, Kabalites, Skitarii could go either way.
Boys, Grots, Firewarriors, & Guardsmen could be going up(?).
Tacs & CSM should go down(not much tho).
(conscripts & other cannon fodder I have no idea whether +/- is warranted)
since cultists are 100% for sure going up(a ton) & Intercessors are (obviously) the new standard we might see a completely new order to which cheap troops are which(in relation to other factions).
Spoletta wrote: According to the rumors, the average price hike is 25%.
This would mean that the intercessors were buffed...
I can think of many reasons for this, but none of them truly convinces me.
- Troops no longer pay a troop "tax" because they are no longer tired to CP generation. Ok fair, but then the cultist cost raise becomes even more of an headscratcher.
- They wanted a clean and round point cost for them since they are meant to be the measurement stick for the game. Ok, seems fair... but then the 25% cost hike doesn't seem correct.
- It's a GW marketing ploy to make intercessors ultra OP and sell loads of them.... yeah no, they are the kit with the highest point to $ in the SM arsenal I think and almost every player already has quite a lot of them.
- New morale rules make elite infantry less appealing and so they see a general cost reduction? Maybe but doesn't sound really convincing.
- New cover rules advantage light infantry over heavy infantry? Yeah, maye this is the only one that seems to work.
Or:
Intercessor guns now cost more inflating the model cost
Their profile gets errata'd to remove some special rules
The points shown are from the v3 codex which is different again
Cultists are receiving a minor rules buff/tweak to compensate
We literally know nothing about the new points system or any altered units for 8th and people are crying how "it's not fair". People need to let go of 8th, stop comparing partial pictures of a game we've not seen and applying it to the existing framework of one that's about to become obsolete.
Maybee they get SV 5+ and traits? or something else entirely?
I do wonder though were that leaves guardsmen.
I'd not be surprised if cultists was expanded to encompass renegade guardspeople, which would easily explain a bump on the save. Might be mis-remembering but aren't cultists 1" faster than guard infantry, which on a smaller board might be worth more.
- New cover rules advantage light infantry over heavy infantry? Yeah, maye this is the only one that seems to work.
So far the terrain rules they have mentioned have been basically ITC 1st floor blocks LOS level. This favours smaller units as they are easier to hide completely.
Intercessor guns now cost more inflating the model cost
That would require them to have options somewhere. Weapons that are basically non upgradeable are 0 cost regardless of power. See 0 pts volcano cannons...
That would require them to have options somewhere. Weapons that are basically non upgradeable are 0 cost regardless of power. See 0 pts volcano cannons...
The game is inconsistent on the matter. A foetid bloat-drone's plague probe is non-upgradable, only exists for that one unit, and still costs a big lump of points.
- New cover rules advantage light infantry over heavy infantry? Yeah, maye this is the only one that seems to work.
So far the terrain rules they have mentioned have been basically ITC 1st floor blocks LOS level. This favours smaller units as they are easier to hide completely.
Intercessor guns now cost more inflating the model cost
That would require them to have options somewhere. Weapons that are basically non upgradeable are 0 cost regardless of power. See 0 pts volcano cannons...
You do realise intercessors currently have 3 different weapons, each with different points values right?
You realise we have topics now that complain about the game basically being over and decided by turn 2 because the lethality and lack of terrain is to extreme.
the length of play time is directly connected to how enjoyable the game play is.
The game length in time and turn's aren't same though. T2 game ending when getting that sorted out isn't fun. T6 ending where you finish game same speed or even faster than T2 is.
And even then T2 ending at shorter time is still better than T2 with more minutes spent.
Well I have strong doubts GW is going to change much about how alfa strike is a potent tactic in w40k. Sure maybe it is going to change, and happen less often or not at all on turn 1, and move to turn 2-3. But this only means that turn 1 is going to be an extended form of deployment, if neither of the armies can properly engage each other.
In the end the game lenght is a secondary thing, even in places where you pay for the table per hour. The game can be one turn, or just my turn, and if I win it is going to enjoyable to me. And probably not very enjoyable to the person who won't get to do much.
I am still having my doubts about peoples optimis, with the game becoming smaller. People that own 2000pts armies are not going to be very happy, that they have left over units or non optimised lists at the new 2000pts. and soon we end up seeing 2100 or what ever points are going to be close to the old 2000pts. I wish, I am wrong on this though.
Spoletta wrote: According to the rumors, the average price hike is 25%.
This would mean that the intercessors were buffed...
I can think of many reasons for this, but none of them truly convinces me.
- Troops no longer pay a troop "tax" because they are no longer tired to CP generation. Ok fair, but then the cultist cost raise becomes even more of an headscratcher.
- They wanted a clean and round point cost for them since they are meant to be the measurement stick for the game. Ok, seems fair... but then the 25% cost hike doesn't seem correct.
- It's a GW marketing ploy to make intercessors ultra OP and sell loads of them.... yeah no, they are the kit with the highest point to $ in the SM arsenal I think and almost every player already has quite a lot of them.
- New morale rules make elite infantry less appealing and so they see a general cost reduction? Maybe but doesn't sound really convincing.
- New cover rules advantage light infantry over heavy infantry? Yeah, maye this is the only one that seems to work.
Or:
Intercessor guns now cost more inflating the model cost
Their profile gets errata'd to remove some special rules
The points shown are from the v3 codex which is different again
Cultists are receiving a minor rules buff/tweak to compensate
We literally know nothing about the new points system or any altered units for 8th and people are crying how "it's not fair". People need to let go of 8th, stop comparing partial pictures of a game we've not seen and applying it to the existing framework of one that's about to become obsolete.
Maybee they get SV 5+ and traits? or something else entirely?
I do wonder though were that leaves guardsmen.
I'd not be surprised if cultists was expanded to encompass renegade guardspeople, which would easily explain a bump on the save. Might be mis-remembering but aren't cultists 1" faster than guard infantry, which on a smaller board might be worth more.
Currently guardsmen and cultists are identical except guardsmen have a better save (5+ vs cultist 6+) and leadership (6, 7 for sergeant vs 5, 6 for champion). If cultists are now considered traitor guard that would be annoying, they are not the same thing.
You realise we have topics now that complain about the game basically being over and decided by turn 2 because the lethality and lack of terrain is to extreme.
the length of play time is directly connected to how enjoyable the game play is.
The game length in time and turn's aren't same though. T2 game ending when getting that sorted out isn't fun. T6 ending where you finish game same speed or even faster than T2 is.
And even then T2 ending at shorter time is still better than T2 with more minutes spent.
Well I have strong doubts GW is going to change much about how alfa strike is a potent tactic in w40k. Sure maybe it is going to change, and happen less often or not at all on turn 1, and move to turn 2-3. But this only means that turn 1 is going to be an extended form of deployment, if neither of the armies can properly engage each other.
In the end the game lenght is a secondary thing, even in places where you pay for the table per hour. The game can be one turn, or just my turn, and if I win it is going to enjoyable to me. And probably not very enjoyable to the person who won't get to do much.
I am still having my doubts about peoples optimis, with the game becoming smaller. People that own 2000pts armies are not going to be very happy, that they have left over units or non optimised lists at the new 2000pts. and soon we end up seeing 2100 or what ever points are going to be close to the old 2000pts. I wish, I am wrong on this though.
If I played a game and it was over at the end of the first battle round, or first player turn (or even the second for that matter) I would very much doubt that I would have enjoyed it regardless of whether I won or lost. Horses for courses I suppose.
I've had games where I've won by a sizable margin and the game wasn't very fun, and I've had games where I've lost on the last dice roll of the game. I definietly enjoy the latter far more than the former.
We are lacking the context to make an accurate guess of whether or not this will be a good change. But I'm doubting 9th edition will change things up as much as people are hoping for. Games Workshop seem pretty happy with how the game is standing right now, and are convinced there aren't any real balance issues that need addressing. Really, the new edition stuff is likely marketing talk to convince doubters that the game will be fine. But again, we don't have enough information to judge. We can only speculate with what we know right now.
a) GW doesn't care about balance b) that's why they are doing changes now. They want do the periodic shape up to make people buy new models. Current balance isn't worry.
tneva82 wrote: a) GW doesn't care about balance b) that's why they are doing changes now. They want do the periodic shape up to make people buy new models. Current balance isn't worry.
Likely true. Convince people that they'll be able to compete, and they're more likely to feel comfortable in investing their time and money. Games Workshop are attempting to instil confidence in those who doubt the new edition will be great. Those who already think it's great are going to spend money either way, so no need ton convince them nearly as much.
If I played a game and it was over at the end of the first battle round, or first player turn (or even the second for that matter) I would very much doubt that I would have enjoyed it regardless of whether I won or lost. Horses for courses I suppose.
I've had games where I've won by a sizable margin and the game wasn't very fun, and I've had games where I've lost on the last dice roll of the game. I definietly enjoy the latter far more than the former.
In over 2 years of playing I won zero games, drew 5 and got one disqualification of opponent by not showing up. Any win is good for me, moot thing anyway, considering are shop closed and there is no where to play.
Those who already think it's great are going to spend money either way, so no need ton convince them nearly as much.
True. animals compet against each other, and no one has to convince them about it. I just hope that GW doesn't go all crazy, and start making arbitrary point changes for armies that won't have a codex in 6-12 months time, to adjust point costs, but not rules, to books that have a fresh 9th codex. May as well restard 8th then, and just roll back CA and FAQ. would be the same thing.
Jidmah wrote: Having all models properly split into weapon/body cost would be a good thing IMO. Those assault bolters would be much more interesting if they were free while the other two variants cost points.
You realise we have topics now that complain about the game basically being over and decided by turn 2 because the lethality and lack of terrain is to extreme.
the length of play time is directly connected to how enjoyable the game play is.
: Less intense startup. The cost of starting an army is high, reducing the model count of standard play allows new players to more easily enter into the hobby and for players to pick up new armies.
So....that's why GW just jacked prices across the board...perhaps because they know they might sell less models. does the land raider kit that has not changed in over a decade need to cost double what it used to?
3: Less crowded board. The board is just too small for many armies right now;
That's a direct result of 8th giving units huge movement increases., all the previous editions were tied into the standard 4X6 table with movmenet locked into 6" increments. the fastest non flyer unit on the table used to be eldar jet bikes that could move 24" at flat out speed and an additional d6 in the assault phase. but could do nothing else but move. everything else was tied into the 6-12" range.
It isn't just the movement increases. Prices have gone down by incredibly large amounts for many, many, many units that used to cost far more than they do now.
tneva82 wrote: a) GW doesn't care about balance b) that's why they are doing changes now. They want do the periodic shape up to make people buy new models. Current balance isn't worry.
Right, which is why we're seeing point increases across the board. See, if points increase, and you need fewer models to play a 2k game, then GW will...make more...money?
You know it's really weird, sometimes when I fit ideas into my head and every single one of them has to end with "....because GW cynically wants to sell more models" I get this weird, dissonant pain in my head, and I have to hold my temples and scream "BECAUSE GW CYNICALLY WANTS TO SELL MORE MODELS" over and over again to get it to stop.
Like when they do something that would seem to result in GW selling fewer models. Do you ever get that?
Martel732 wrote: Marines were 30 ppm in 2nd and -3 AP weapons were common and had high RoF. Ludicrous.
I'd like to see a return to 30pt marines (primaris anyway) I still think the 20pt intercessor is too cheap. It would give a lot more room for variety for other models. IIRC orks were 12pt and gretchin 5pt in 2nd (could be wrong though.)
I don't remember seeing all that many high ROF or AP -3 stuff in 2nd though. I think compared to 8th there were far fewer shots fired per model. High RoF had sustained fire dice, so could jam, every model in a unit had to shoot the same target, heavy weapons couldn't fire if they moved and models could only "see" in a 90 degree arc in front of them.
I think many of these rules would improve 8th by reducing the lethality of shooting (except the 90 arc, I wouldn't want that to come back!).
Martel732 wrote: Marines were 30 ppm in 2nd and -3 AP weapons were common and had high RoF. Ludicrous.
Yeah, armor was a joke in 2nd. A freakin' Musket had -1AP, lol. The difficulty was hitting the target, when you could very frequently stack -2 or -3 to hit on a unit.
"I don't remember seeing all that many high ROF or AP -3 stuff in 2nd though. I think compared to 8th there were far fewer shots fired per model. High RoF had sustained fire dice, so could jam, every model in a unit had to shoot the same target, heavy weapons couldn't fire if they moved and models could only "see" in a 90 degree arc in front of them."
Eldar vypers with dual shuriken cannon my friend. And noise marine sonic blasters were -2 AP 32" range. I saw them constantly spammed. I saw multiple marine armies never even get a turn.
Martel732 wrote: Marines were 30 ppm in 2nd and -3 AP weapons were common and had high RoF. Ludicrous.
Yeah, armor was a joke in 2nd. A freakin' Musket had -1AP, lol. The difficulty was hitting the target, when you could very frequently stack -2 or -3 to hit on a unit.
tneva82 wrote: a) GW doesn't care about balance b) that's why they are doing changes now. They want do the periodic shape up to make people buy new models. Current balance isn't worry.
Right, which is why we're seeing point increases across the board. See, if points increase, and you need fewer models to play a 2k game, then GW will...make more...money?
You know it's really weird, sometimes when I fit ideas into my head and every single one of them has to end with "....because GW cynically wants to sell more models" I get this weird, dissonant pain in my head, and I have to hold my temples and scream "BECAUSE GW CYNICALLY WANTS TO SELL MORE MODELS" over and over again to get it to stop.
Like when they do something that would seem to result in GW selling fewer models. Do you ever get that?
We haven't gotten to the news of side boards being introduced to 40k. Even if you only play with 2000 points you'll bring an additional 1000 points for a total of 3000. That's how they're gettin ya.
Martel732 wrote: "I don't remember seeing all that many high ROF or AP -3 stuff in 2nd though. I think compared to 8th there were far fewer shots fired per model. High RoF had sustained fire dice, so could jam, every model in a unit had to shoot the same target, heavy weapons couldn't fire if they moved and models could only "see" in a 90 degree arc in front of them."
Eldar vypers with dual shuriken cannon my friend. And noise marine sonic blasters were -2 AP 32" range. I saw them constantly spammed. I saw multiple marine armies never even get a turn.
Martel732 wrote: Marines were 30 ppm in 2nd and -3 AP weapons were common and had high RoF. Ludicrous.
Yeah, armor was a joke in 2nd. A freakin' Musket had -1AP, lol. The difficulty was hitting the target, when you could very frequently stack -2 or -3 to hit on a unit.
Marines struggled to get such penalties.
Uh...how? They can claim soft and hard cover same as anybody else, and that was the most common source of -2 to hit in the game rules. Also, basically every marine vehicle besides the dreadnought could get an extra -1 to hit by moving at Combat or Slow speed, and tons of marine stuff started from 2+ to hit thanks to Targeters.
Overall, I'm happy to see it, but the cost of a naked unit is less important than the cost of the weapons. Back in the stone age, a heavy weapon cost a lot more than the infantryman holding it, for instance, while today it can be quite close, depending on the body. (Marine? yes. Guardsman? Not so much.)
The key is to figure out what the baseline is and go from there.
Are we starting by saying a Grot, the weakest non-swarm around, is worth X and working from there? Are we instead using a Guardsman as the measuring stick? Or do we revolve around the Tactical Marine?
Each one has advantages and disadvantages.
If you start with a Grot at, say, 3 points, and charge more each time any stat increases, you can get basic models shooting up quickly.
With a Guardsman base, points increase more slowly, but you get some squeeze down below when trying to fit Cultists, Termagants, and Grots under there.
With a Marine base, you're using the most common model as the baseline, but that squeeze underneath gets a whole lot tighter.
Personally, and possibly because I'm old, I always considered the Guardsman profile (naked) to be the best place to work from. Call them 5 points, then figure out how much a lasgun, laspitol, CCW, grenades, and armor saves are, then run from there. The squeeze underneath isn't as bad, since an average guardsman with gear winds up 8 points or so, and it lets the more elite units really have room to breathe.
Martel732 wrote: "I don't remember seeing all that many high ROF or AP -3 stuff in 2nd though. I think compared to 8th there were far fewer shots fired per model. High RoF had sustained fire dice, so could jam, every model in a unit had to shoot the same target, heavy weapons couldn't fire if they moved and models could only "see" in a 90 degree arc in front of them."
Eldar vypers with dual shuriken cannon my friend. And noise marine sonic blasters were -2 AP 32" range. I saw them constantly spammed. I saw multiple marine armies never even get a turn.
Martel732 wrote: Marines were 30 ppm in 2nd and -3 AP weapons were common and had high RoF. Ludicrous.
Yeah, armor was a joke in 2nd. A freakin' Musket had -1AP, lol. The difficulty was hitting the target, when you could very frequently stack -2 or -3 to hit on a unit.
Marines struggled to get such penalties.
What's funny is I only saw a dedicated Slaanesh/Noise Marine army once in 2nd. and it was in a tournament. I annihilated it almost without taking a casualty, easily my most landslide victory of the tourney. Those Noise Marines were expensive, and still just a T4 3+ like the rest of Marines. Marines had their own share of high ROF weapons, with the benefit of being equipped on high BS models with Targeters to mitigate cover bonuses.
Martel732 wrote: "I don't remember seeing all that many high ROF or AP -3 stuff in 2nd though. I think compared to 8th there were far fewer shots fired per model. High RoF had sustained fire dice, so could jam, every model in a unit had to shoot the same target, heavy weapons couldn't fire if they moved and models could only "see" in a 90 degree arc in front of them."
Eldar vypers with dual shuriken cannon my friend. And noise marine sonic blasters were -2 AP 32" range. I saw them constantly spammed. I saw multiple marine armies never even get a turn.
Martel732 wrote: Marines were 30 ppm in 2nd and -3 AP weapons were common and had high RoF. Ludicrous.
Yeah, armor was a joke in 2nd. A freakin' Musket had -1AP, lol. The difficulty was hitting the target, when you could very frequently stack -2 or -3 to hit on a unit.
Marines struggled to get such penalties.
What's funny is I only saw a dedicated Slaanesh/Noise Marine army once in 2nd. and it was in a tournament. I annihilated it almost without taking a casualty, easily my most landslide victory of the tourney. Those Noise Marines were expensive, and still just a T4 3+ like the rest of Marines. Marines had their own share of high ROF weapons, with the benefit of being equipped on high BS models with Targeters to mitigate cover bonuses.
I can almost guarantee you you wouldn't have been able to do that in our play group. We'll never know, but that doesn't jive with what I saw. Although I'm pretty sure they had plague marines in front to handle Nids, so you'd have to shoot them first. Marines weapons were jokes in 2nd ed for the most part. At least compared to the other faction. Let's also not forget the all-terminator chaos army that stays in teleport until the last turn so the worst it can ever do is draw.
Marines weren't the only army losing in a single turn, but they were the most frequent offender. There was also the 1st company list that didn't get to take an action because it spent the whole game pulsa rokkitted by genestealer cults.
^I probably just went first and put down all the hurt before he could fire. Marines had plenty enough firepower. Lord knows you could pack a ton of -2 and -3 save shots into an army.
I'm absolutely shocked at how positive that bar is for points costs going up across the board. Restores some faith in humanity in these dark times
I feel like we're all noticing just how packed tables are these days. Something had to give. My guard armies were regularly fielding over a 100 infantry with 10-12 tanks at 2000pts which is insane. Just carrying that around at a tournament was nerve wracking, let alone trying to play it. Part of the reason I stopped going to tournaments in 8th was because I was sick of lugging so many models around.
I'm sure GW is going to mess up some unit costs and lead to some units being too good or not good enough. That's inevitable. But the intent of lowering the amount of models to make a better game for the players is a good one, even though I'm sure a few players won't be happy they can't fit all their favorite toys in. This is the classic conundrum with all wargames. All gamers want to run all their cool stuff and toys, but in order to let the elite armies bring all their fun stuff you saddle the normal and horde armies with an insane amount of models if you're not careful. Well see how armies like space marines and custodes react to the changes. I personally expect lots of griping from a small section of the massive marine playerbase, just because a playerbase that big will inevitably have someone that hates it, but overall it will be good for the health of the game.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I'm absolutely shocked at how positive that bar is for points costs going up across the board. Restores some faith in humanity in these dark times
I feel like we're all noticing just how packed tables are these days. Something had to give. My guard armies were regularly fielding over a 100 infantry with 10-12 tanks at 2000pts which is insane. Just carrying that around at a tournament was nerve wracking, let alone trying to play it. Part of the reason I stopped going to tournaments in 8th was because I was sick of lugging so many models around.
I'm sure GW is going to mess up some unit costs and lead to some units being too good or not good enough. That's inevitable. But the intent of lowering the amount of models to make a better game for the players is a good one, even though I'm sure a few players won't be happy they can't fit all their favorite toys in. This is the classic conundrum with all wargames. All gamers want to run all their cool stuff and toys, but in order to let the elite armies bring all their fun stuff you saddle the normal and horde armies with an insane amount of models if you're not careful. Well see how armies like space marines and custodes react to the changes. I personally expect lots of griping from a small section of the massive marine playerbase, just because a playerbase that big will inevitably have someone that hates it, but overall it will be good for the health of the game.
IT's obvious the race to the bottom made it impossible to granulate guardsmen and grots.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I'm absolutely shocked at how positive that bar is for points costs going up across the board. Restores some faith in humanity in these dark times
I feel like we're all noticing just how packed tables are these days. Something had to give. My guard armies were regularly fielding over a 100 infantry with 10-12 tanks at 2000pts which is insane. Just carrying that around at a tournament was nerve wracking, let alone trying to play it. Part of the reason I stopped going to tournaments in 8th was because I was sick of lugging so many models around.
I'm sure GW is going to mess up some unit costs and lead to some units being too good or not good enough. That's inevitable. But the intent of lowering the amount of models to make a better game for the players is a good one, even though I'm sure a few players won't be happy they can't fit all their favorite toys in. This is the classic conundrum with all wargames. All gamers want to run all their cool stuff and toys, but in order to let the elite armies bring all their fun stuff you saddle the normal and horde armies with an insane amount of models if you're not careful. Well see how armies like space marines and custodes react to the changes. I personally expect lots of griping from a small section of the massive marine playerbase, just because a playerbase that big will inevitably have someone that hates it, but overall it will be good for the health of the game.
I am actually not shocked that GW ,being the behemoth it is, has legions of lemmings willing to do anything GW wants and justify it in any way they can. including things that any other game company would not get a pass on like over costed models, terrible rules writing, bad game mechanics etc... they have built a huge market share, some of the most detailed plastic minis and a compelling game universe in depth and gamers want to game so they eat it up. No other game company is big enough to challenge GWs dominant position. As long as sales are up GW will continue down the same path good or bad.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I'm absolutely shocked at how positive that bar is for points costs going up across the board. Restores some faith in humanity in these dark times
I feel like we're all noticing just how packed tables are these days. Something had to give. My guard armies were regularly fielding over a 100 infantry with 10-12 tanks at 2000pts which is insane. Just carrying that around at a tournament was nerve wracking, let alone trying to play it. Part of the reason I stopped going to tournaments in 8th was because I was sick of lugging so many models around.
I'm sure GW is going to mess up some unit costs and lead to some units being too good or not good enough. That's inevitable. But the intent of lowering the amount of models to make a better game for the players is a good one, even though I'm sure a few players won't be happy they can't fit all their favorite toys in. This is the classic conundrum with all wargames. All gamers want to run all their cool stuff and toys, but in order to let the elite armies bring all their fun stuff you saddle the normal and horde armies with an insane amount of models if you're not careful. Well see how armies like space marines and custodes react to the changes. I personally expect lots of griping from a small section of the massive marine playerbase, just because a playerbase that big will inevitably have someone that hates it, but overall it will be good for the health of the game.
They'll definitely hate it if it means they can't force people who play other factions to buy and paint gigantic hordes of units to play the game at the points value they want to make standard. If horde units are balanced around new point costs (meaning, if they're signfiicantly harder to take out than right now) you can 100% bet the lower model count will be unpopular because people currently looooooooove just schlooping giant blobs of cheap models off the table.
Basically, any time 10 or fewer light infantry models survive a shooting attack, the marine players go "what? That's bs they lived."
I love the idea, as my favorite format is and alwyas has been the 1500 points one in every edition since 3rd. But those hikes must be fair and balanced among all the factions.
With 20ppm intercessors I can't really accept boyz being more expensive than 7ppm, they already are 7ppm and they look overcosted.
Blackie wrote: I love the idea, as my favorite format is and alwyas has been the 1500 points one in every edition since 3rd. But those hikes must be fair and balanced among all the factions.
With 20ppm intercessors I can't really accept boyz being more expensive than 7ppm, they already are 7ppm and they look overcosted.
It won't make any difference, people will just move the standard game size up to match the points cost increase. this is NOT a skirmish game and has not been since 2nd ed. that is what games like kill teams and necromunda are for in the 40K line. (not to mention all the alternate game systems by other companies). players expect 40K to be played in larger scale. nobody is going to want to NOT use all the minis they have collected for their army.
I strongly disagree, I hate playing the entire collection, part of the fun is making choices in list building and try different combinations. A 1500 points army with 8th edition points values is still pretty big. For very large scale games there's always apocalypse.
Luckily the new minimum table size of a 2001+ points game will discourage from adopting big formats as the new standard.
It won't make any difference, people will just move the standard game size up to match the points cost increase. this is NOT a skirmish game and has not been since 2nd ed. that is what games like kill teams and necromunda are for in the 40K line. (not to mention all the alternate game systems by other companies). players expect 40K to be played in larger scale. nobody is going to want to NOT use all the minis they have collected for their army.
I strongly disagree, I hate playing the entire collection, part of the fun is making choices in list building and try different combinations. A 1500 points army with 8th edition points values is still pretty big. For very large scale games there's always apocalypse.
Luckily the new minimum table size of a 2001+ points game will discourage from adopting big formats as the new standard.
I also strongly disagree. I hate this mentality in the game now where you should be able to just stuff everything you want into your list for every game. Having to make choices and compromises about what you put in is far more interesting. I would hate to field my entire collection at once. That would not be fun for me or me the person I'm playing against.
