Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi guys, after playing around with the 8th edition leaks and a few army ideas, I've come to a realisation regarding 8ths point system and game balance.

The basic 'point' is that the 8th edition point system is going to make it between difficult and impossible to achieve internal balance within armies due to each weapons globalised (within the scope of an army) point cost.

If you've got any kind of background in programming, you'll know where I'm going with GLOBAL VARIABLES ARE BAD.

But to give an example. Say unit X is particularly powerful in the game when equipped with weapon A, but also fine when equipped with weapon B and C.

Unit Y and Z also have access to weapon A, and are perfectly fine.

GW cant increase the cost of weapon A because that would mess with units Y and Z. And GW cant increase the cost of unit X because that would make unit X useless when equipped with weapons B and C (and everyone loves weapons B and C).

The easy fix to this is giving each unit its own costs for its weapon selections (like 7th had slightly, but not as much as it should have had).

8th ed does actually have different points for units for the same weapon if they feel warranted. See thunder hammers for example.

Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.

Yep. The new point system (including power levels) is a solution in need of a problem, and never should have been introduced.

I can't say I enjoy armoury style wargear selection. I'd much rather have all the options available on the page with the unit profile and cost. This lets each wargear choice have a bespoke cost for the unit.

I do agree with you, its silly for a Sergeant to pay the same as a Lord Commissar for a power weapon when the power weapon is vastly more effective on the Lord.

Wholeheartedly agreed

 Rippy wrote:
Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.

Consider IG heavy weapons, for example. You can't move and shoot heavy weapons*, so whether or not a unit wants to move makes a huge difference in how valuable a heavy weapon is. A veteran squad is primarily a melta/plasma delivery unit, so it will almost always be moving and adding a heavy weapon has very little value. A blob platoon, on the other hand, is often content to camp behind cover all game and gets to shoot that heavy weapon every turn. So clearly the values of the two heavy weapon upgrades are not equal.


*Yes, I know that you can in 8th now, for a trivial penalty. This is incredibly stupid and should be house ruled away.

 Rippy wrote:
Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.

You seriously don't see why power fist is better in hands of a marine captain rather than devastator sergeant? Or why powerfist is better even for tactical sergeant over devastator sergeant? (last example just to deny inevitable arqument "chapter master costs more". Tac and dev sergeants costs more and you can't put price of fist boost chapter master in chapter master cause then he needs to be armed with fist! And chapter master doesn't benefit from every weapon equally neccessarily so if his point was upped X because he benefits more from fist than tac sergeant that amount is not neccessarily correct with other weapon...)

That's like basic game design 101...

Having them all one smacks of stupid algorithm used to generate point values. +1A for model so up the point cost X pts regardless of other stats, equipment etc.

*Yes, I know that you can in 8th now, for a trivial penalty. This is incredibly stupid and should be house ruled away.

So.. you now want to start house ruling away Weapon Rules already.

 Peregrine wrote:
*Yes, I know that you can in 8th now, for a trivial penalty. This is incredibly stupid and should be house ruled away.

So you're arguing your point not on how the game is but how you think it should be. You should think of an example that isn't reliant on you breaking the game to make it make sense.

Not only does the new system have the issues pointed out by the OP, it also seems unnecessarily clunky and annoying to actually use.

Just putting an army together is a bit of a chore now, scanning through unit and weapon lists spread over a couple of pages while also trying to remember what options a unit actually has access to.

The new datasheets really need to include the points values, not just the weird Power Level (that seems to serve little purpose). Building an army shouldn't be this convoluted.

Agreed, I plan on annotating my books excessively so that I don't have to deal with this

Pro: having all the points costs on one page means it's easier to update or issue errata.

Con: you need to look in two places.

How those affect you depends on how you play. I and everyone I play field "standard" units armed as they're assembled (My Praetorian platoon has one squad with a meltagun and autocannon and a sergeant with a chainsword, one squad with a flamer, heavy bolter and sergeant with power sword and a command squad with a lieutenant with chainsword and bolt pistol, a standard bearer, a bugler/vox-operator and a grenade launcher). I only need to work out the points cost of that once, so after I've done that the fact that the points costs are on a different page to the stats is irrelevant.

Other people like fiddling their list to the nth degree for each game, in which case it could be annoying.

The points have always been garbage. All the way from the beginning the points have been garbage. That the points will continue to be garbage is not surprising, or to be honest, something that I care much about.

We'll continue to spreadsheet the game and find the optimal load outs and just stick with that as has been done since the long ago.

This just seems.. a bit iffy from a standpoint, generally you could raise the cost of Unit X and see how it does as a result, or considering some units have differing points cost for usage it may just be good to give them their own individualized section.

Much as 8th is an improvement, the thing is that they continue to improve and learn from their mistakes, they seem willing to look over things for AoS when it came down to it for the generals handbook 2 so long as they continue moving forward.

First off, Global variables are a great thing in programming, if your being told otherwise your being told wrong. Like dead wrong.

Second, yes the points in 8th are way WAY off. We did some math hammering out the other day.

Thousand sons vs dark angels. power point wise, rubrics vs terminators, each were taking out a model a turn, but the rubrics cost 8 power points, this was only using bolters as well.

Actual points did not fair well either, against scarab occult terminators, they only cost 1 point more for all inferno bolters, power swords, and a reaper assault cannon. Deathwing terminators kitted with a assault cannon cost 1 point less, but just got decimated in shooting, even in range, it was only slightly more balanced.

Right now from what i see points are way outta wack in the game right now, especially thousand sons, i would be prepared to see them as a top tier army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
Not only does the new system have the issues pointed out by the OP, it also seems unnecessarily clunky and annoying to actually use.

Just putting an army together is a bit of a chore now, scanning through unit and weapon lists spread over a couple of pages while also trying to remember what options a unit actually has access to.

The new datasheets really need to include the points values, not just the weird Power Level (that seems to serve little purpose). Building an army shouldn't be this convoluted.

can confirm this as well, its like 2nd ed all over.

When I first saw all the weird point costs I thought for a second "maybe gw did, maybe they finally built some sort of internal metric (think vbr) to help objectively balance power as best as possible. I'm starting to think they spit balled every last point cost...

 Rippy wrote:
Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.

Different capabilities and synergy. Consider everyone's bugbear of a gun from 7e (using 7e rules for this example), the Scatter Laser. On Windriders or War Walkers, it's terrifyingly good, downright OP even. On Guardians, Vypers and Wave Serpents, it's fairly effective. On Falcons it's actually pretty iffy. On Wraithlords, it's not great either. Why? Well, consider this: Windriders can get a huge number of them, on a relentless platform that moves 12", then either rabbits out of the way, or moves further forward! War Walkers aren't as fast, but they can Outflank, and they can still JSJ by using Battle Focus. On Falcons, OTOH, it doesn't synergize well with either of the platform's other guns. It's an anti-infantry gun like the shuriken cannon, but if you're going to use that, you have to be closer, so you might as well pass on the Scatter Laser and keep the free shuricannon, or else buy a Starcannon or Brightlance for the same price, either of which synergizes better with the Pulse Laser. Wraithlords suffer from a similar problem: if you're going to sit back and peashoot, you're better off taking the guns you can't get on cheaper platforms. Or, if you want to get close to cash in on the Wraithlord's assault capability, you don't need the range: better to take the cheaper and often stronger shuricannon.

The same sort of thing applies elsewhere. A bit less so in 8e, where Relentless isn't really a consideration anymore. It comes up more strongly with melee weapons, though: a model with higher Strength, higher WS or more Attacks can get more out of a weapon that adds S, AP and Damage. But, the more attacks you have, the less useful - proportionally speaking - one more attack is, so things like chainswords are less interesting for them. (Fortunately they're generally free.)

 Crablezworth wrote:
When I first saw all the weird point costs I thought for a second "maybe gw did, maybe they finally built some sort of internal metric (think vbr) to help objectively balance power as best as possible. I'm starting to think they spit balled every last point cost...

That was my initial thought as well, all the points seem really arbitrary. It really would not be as bad if they just did pointing like they did in past editions but balance them as needed. Like terminators, should have just said, they come base with a fist and SB, 5 cost 200, then 35 for each one more. Rather then 20 something for the base, then 2 for the SB, then 20 for the fist, then the ps is 20 for the sgt. Just clunky.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
First off, Global variables are a great thing in programming, if your being told otherwise your being told wrong. Like dead wrong.

Second, yes the points in 8th are way WAY off. We did some math hammering out the other day.

Thousand sons vs dark angels. power point wise, rubrics vs terminators, each were taking out a model a turn, but the rubrics cost 8 power points, this was only using bolters as well.

Actual points did not fair well either, against scarab occult terminators, they only cost 1 point more for all inferno bolters, power swords, and a reaper assault cannon. Deathwing terminators kitted with a assault cannon cost 1 point less, but just got decimated in shooting, even in range, it was only slightly more balanced.

Right now from what i see points are way outta wack in the game right now, especially thousand sons, i would be prepared to see them as a top tier army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
Not only does the new system have the issues pointed out by the OP, it also seems unnecessarily clunky and annoying to actually use.

Just putting an army together is a bit of a chore now, scanning through unit and weapon lists spread over a couple of pages while also trying to remember what options a unit actually has access to.

The new datasheets really need to include the points values, not just the weird Power Level (that seems to serve little purpose). Building an army shouldn't be this convoluted.

can confirm this as well, its like 2nd ed all over.

Err, a lot of those units that you mentioned cost a lot more. It looks like you didn't factor in the weapons at all. A Scarab Occult Terminator is a lot more expensive than a normal Terminator.


I'm not saying the points costs aren't off in many places. I was the first to point out that the new Wraithknight is overpriced by 50 to 100 points, yet the fanboys kept shouting me down that GW has priced everything perfect and that I shouldn't assume otherwise.

The thing is, this issue was already present in the old codex;

Units in this edition have their base point costs adjusted in anticipation for the weapons they might receive, so a normal Terminator has a lower base cost than the Assault Terminator, despite having no weapons means they should be identical. This is likely because the Lightning Claws and Thunderhammers the Assault Terminators get were adjusted for costs for the Vanguard Vets and the characters. They have been using the base cost of the units to adjust things around, meaning that the end result is still somewhat comparable to the old unit costs (at least in ratio if not in direct costs). For weapons that do affect units drastically differently, just look at the Tyranids point list; the Carnifex has two separate weapon entries for it's scything talons despite them being identical to the Hive Tyrants. Yet the Tyrant gets it's own entry for how much it's Scything Talons would cost, while the Fex has two separate costs for taking one pair or two.

As for variances between two units that have identical profiles and cost, but vastly different uses (like the dev sarge and the tact sarge), this was already present in the old codex. Both of them paid the same points for a power fist since the dawn of time, especially during 5th edition where the Armory was nonexistant for most armies.

The only real issue with their new style of writing is that you often get people confused when they look at a unit's cost and assume it includes their base weapons.

Finally, I highly suspect that this layout was for the sake of simplicity; GW had the monumental task of writing new rules for hundreds of units and point costs, so this is most likely just them giving the units a spreadsheet-style treatment. When the actual codex/battletomes come, I'd suspect we'd see something more in like with what we're used to.

 Therion wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
First off, Global variables are a great thing in programming, if your being told otherwise your being told wrong. Like dead wrong.

Second, yes the points in 8th are way WAY off. We did some math hammering out the other day.

Thousand sons vs dark angels. power point wise, rubrics vs terminators, each were taking out a model a turn, but the rubrics cost 8 power points, this was only using bolters as well.

Actual points did not fair well either, against scarab occult terminators, they only cost 1 point more for all inferno bolters, power swords, and a reaper assault cannon. Deathwing terminators kitted with a assault cannon cost 1 point less, but just got decimated in shooting, even in range, it was only slightly more balanced.

Right now from what i see points are way outta wack in the game right now, especially thousand sons, i would be prepared to see them as a top tier army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
Not only does the new system have the issues pointed out by the OP, it also seems unnecessarily clunky and annoying to actually use.

Just putting an army together is a bit of a chore now, scanning through unit and weapon lists spread over a couple of pages while also trying to remember what options a unit actually has access to.

The new datasheets really need to include the points values, not just the weird Power Level (that seems to serve little purpose). Building an army shouldn't be this convoluted.

can confirm this as well, its like 2nd ed all over.

Err, a lot of those units that you mentioned cost a lot more. It looks like you didn't factor in the weapons at all. A Scarab Occult Terminator is a lot more expensive than a normal Terminator.

No we sat there and counter all the weapons out for each unit, deathwing terminators vs scarab occult terminators. Each loaded out with their factions unique weapon, terminators got the plasma canon, the scarabs got the reaper assault cannon. Scarab cost 1 point more, not power point but normal points, but could just decimate the deathwing on shooting. Even in melee, they all had power swords, so they forced the use of the 5+, while the deathwing fist forced them to use theirs. So in melee it was fairly balanced, but shooting was just no match. On top of that, they are also a psyker, so they are dealing a mortal wounds, or potentially d3 mortal wounds a turn that i cant do anything against.

 Crablezworth wrote:
When I first saw all the weird point costs I thought for a second "maybe gw did, maybe they finally built some sort of internal metric (think vbr) to help objectively balance power as best as possible. I'm starting to think they spit balled every last point cost...

I think they probably did use a formula since the points are just so weird. I'm also convinced their formula is wrong.

If there's one thing that I learned about writing points formulas for fan comp system... its that everyone thinks that their way is right and everyone else's is wrong.

 auticus wrote:
If there's one thing that I learned about writing points formulas for fan comp system... its that everyone thinks that their way is right and everyone else's is wrong.

That's par the course for the internet in general.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Spoiler:

 Therion wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
First off, Global variables are a great thing in programming, if your being told otherwise your being told wrong. Like dead wrong.

Second, yes the points in 8th are way WAY off. We did some math hammering out the other day.

Thousand sons vs dark angels. power point wise, rubrics vs terminators, each were taking out a model a turn, but the rubrics cost 8 power points, this was only using bolters as well.

Actual points did not fair well either, against scarab occult terminators, they only cost 1 point more for all inferno bolters, power swords, and a reaper assault cannon. Deathwing terminators kitted with a assault cannon cost 1 point less, but just got decimated in shooting, even in range, it was only slightly more balanced.

Right now from what i see points are way outta wack in the game right now, especially thousand sons, i would be prepared to see them as a top tier army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
Not only does the new system have the issues pointed out by the OP, it also seems unnecessarily clunky and annoying to actually use.

Just putting an army together is a bit of a chore now, scanning through unit and weapon lists spread over a couple of pages while also trying to remember what options a unit actually has access to.

The new datasheets really need to include the points values, not just the weird Power Level (that seems to serve little purpose). Building an army shouldn't be this convoluted.

can confirm this as well, its like 2nd ed all over.

Err, a lot of those units that you mentioned cost a lot more. It looks like you didn't factor in the weapons at all. A Scarab Occult Terminator is a lot more expensive than a normal Terminator.

No we sat there and counter all the weapons out for each unit, deathwing terminators vs scarab occult terminators. Each loaded out with their factions unique weapon, terminators got the plasma canon, the scarabs got the reaper assault cannon. Scarab cost 1 point more, not power point but normal points, but could just decimate the deathwing on shooting. Even in melee, they all had power swords, so they forced the use of the 5+, while the deathwing fist forced them to use theirs. So in melee it was fairly balanced, but shooting was just no match. On top of that, they are also a psyker, so they are dealing a mortal wounds, or potentially d3 mortal wounds a turn that i cant do anything against.

First off, you see to have not noticed the wounding on 2+ compared to 4+ and d3 wounds. Power fists are significantly better than power swords there, with both units being multi wound models with the same str/toughness.

In fact, your biggest problem was not using deathwing terminators very well. Of course scarab occult are going to out shoot you, they have better guns, and 20 points of your model's cost is tied up in a powerfist. With powerfists actually being costed about right, you'll be wanting to get stuck in with anything that has them, unless it's a unit that dies easily to masses bolter fire. Deathwing terminators who spent points on specialized upgrades, such as TH+SS, would've rocked the scarab even harder, and the cost of being less powerful against other units. This isn't points being off, this is using a generalist unit (deathwing with CB+PF) against a specialist unit (scarab occult) and not taking full advantage of the generalist unit's versatility.

So basically, trying to outshoot scarab occult is bad tactics. You've got a superior melee weapon made to kill units like them, use it. If you want dedicated terminator killers like scarab occult, go TH+SS.

Errrr... there are examples in the book of weapons with the same names and stats that have different costs based on who takes them. The Pair of Massive Scything Claws have different point costs based on if the one that has them is a Tervigon, a Maleceptor or a Trygon. Heck, you have different metrics based on how many pairs of scything claws you have on your units!

which incidentally makes it a pain to read, cos all nids melee weapons have similar names. Massive scything claws, monstrous scything claws, rending claws, monstrous rending claws... and sometimes they add "pair of" making it even more confusing.

As far as the original point goes, the unit's basic cost should include most of the basics in there, rules, statline etc, so it shouldn't be huge enough that it totally ruins things.

That being said, of course certain loadouts are more effective for certain units, that's why listbuilding is a big part of the game. Figuring out which weapons work best on a unit is part of that, as I don't think anyone expects every option on every unit to be 100% equally viable. That's both more or less impossible without a much bigger range of potential values, and rather defeats the point.

For example: one unit has a high base move speed and advances further than normal. Logically, short range assault weapons are a good choice for them. The slow unit thatcsnt advance benefits more from long range weapons, heavy or rapid fire. That doesn't mean we need to give those units huge discounts to the weapons that don't work well with their abilities, instead recognizing what works/doesn't work and equipping units according is part of the game.

Yes a unit that has 1/2 loadouts that are far to good for the price will need its overall price increased, making the loadouts not worth taking even less worth taking. That's not a problem, so long as every unit and every weapon has its own place in an army (and the armies don't have massivcr advantages) balance is still maintained both internally and externally.

Now, examples that differ hugely dramatically might need to be costed differently, which has been done. But for more minor discrepancies, it's not an issue.

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't say I enjoy armoury style wargear selection. I'd much rather have all the options available on the page with the unit profile and cost.

Preach man; much easier to just have it all in one place tailored to the unit.

Slipspace wrote:
Not only does the new system have the issues pointed out by the OP, it also seems unnecessarily clunky and annoying to actually use.

Just putting an army together is a bit of a chore now, scanning through unit and weapon lists spread over a couple of pages while also trying to remember what options a unit actually has access to.

The new datasheets really need to include the points values, not just the weird Power Level (that seems to serve little purpose). Building an army shouldn't be this convoluted.

Photocopying or printing the 2-3 pages with the points costs listed on them helps a lot since you can have it next to your Index while you work out what gear various units have.