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.

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’.”

Full article is here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/

What are opinions on this? I’m not thrilled about it to be honest.

Points should be changed in relation to balance, not to game size. You should pay the points for what something is worth.

Until the To Wound chart is changed, more expensive things will not be worth as much as things are too easy to kill.

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'm very pleased to see points going up.

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.

Yes, makes sense to spread the points out.

Time will tell if the game-wide rebalance that accompanies it has made things better or wose.

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.

Grey40k wrote:

 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).

 aphyon wrote:

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.

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.

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)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

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)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Hobbs wrote:


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.

Eh GW makes player friendly move and you complain? You really enjoy spending more money?

With the official points being on a digital format, this is a good move.

tneva82 wrote:

 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)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Hobbs wrote:


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

 aphyon wrote:


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.