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.

ERJAK wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.

Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.

Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.

That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.

Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?

Whilst I understand all of this and agree if you look at what 40k fans complain about:
- Too many strats stacking buffs
- Complex army building
- Stale missions
- Late turns not mattering
- Imbalanced Secondaries
- Unbalanced lists

They've basically gone down that list and ticked them off.

ERJAK wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.

Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.

Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.

That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.

Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?

You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.

Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.

That doesn't change the imbalance as much to another set of imbalance as GW wants.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.

Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.

Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.

That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.

Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?

You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.

Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.

GW doesn't want a living edition.
They want us dissatisfied enough with the current edition to welcome a new all-different issues version every 3 years.

Dudeface wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.

Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.

Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.

That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.

Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?

Whilst I understand all of this and agree if you look at what 40k fans complain about:
- Too many strats stacking buffs
- Complex army building
- Stale missions
- Late turns not mattering
- Imbalanced Secondaries
- Unbalanced lists

They've basically gone down that list and ticked them off.

They've TRIED to tick them off. Cutting down CP doesn't necessarily mean stacking strats is gone, it just means it happens less often in a single game. It's entirely possible that buff stacking becomes the ONLY use of stratagems after this change (which, contrary to popular opinions, is not the case right now) as it's generally the most efficient way to spend points.

Complex army building...well I guess "1 Battalion, no seasoning" is less complex.

Stale missions: We haven't seen the new missions yet, and rumors are they're doing 'get X CP for doing Y thing' to them, which in my opinion would make them worse.

Late Turns not Mattering: This is 100% intent, not execution. There's just as much of an argument that games will be decided even faster (less defensive aura relics, less transhumans, easier to drain resources, easier to flop an alphastrike and get your teeth knocked out on the crackback). My personal opinion is that games will be decided a half turn faster than before, but that remains to be seen.

Imbalanced Secondaries: This one seems pretty successful so far. TTL and Stranglehold were balls to deal with against some lists and the previewed faction ones seem fine. The best change I've seen so far.

Unbalanced lists: Unfortunately, the CP changes combine with the point changes in such a way that it's completely impossible to predict if the game will end up more or less balanced than before. Nerfs could be canceled out by being on the favorable end of the CP changes, buffs could be canceled out by lacking relics/WTs or 'win more' mission design, etc.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Decisions would've been made with one fix. It's the same double tap that you've still not given an example where GW was correct on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the two examples are completely comparable since you didn't actually try the rules for the limited types of Autarchs you could run. Or did you and found that the wings were too broken with access to the other options?

I have absolutely no idea what this double tap thing is you're asking me to give an example on.

GW promoted the autarch as fitting with the old kit and gave art that showcased it, but rules that were polar opposite from that. It has nothing to do with the power of the model.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Decisions would've been made with one fix. It's the same double tap that you've still not given an example where GW was correct on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the two examples are completely comparable since you didn't actually try the rules for the limited types of Autarchs you could run. Or did you and found that the wings were too broken with access to the other options?

I have absolutely no idea what this double tap thing is you're asking me to give an example on.

GW promoted the autarch as fitting with the old kit and gave art that showcased it, but rules that were polar opposite from that. It has nothing to do with the power of the model.

GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.

Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.

Look at how mad people continue to be about DE not getting more heavily nerfed earlier on.

Incremental change for individual items is good. Sweeping change for all is also fine. Did Ro3 hurt everyone in the same way?

There's a lot of supposition that the changes help the better factions without knowing what else those factions face for hurdles.

If the edition had started with no free relic and WLT we wouldn't be discussing this, because everyone would be starting from that position. And they're STILL starting from the same position, but some people simply don't like change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.

I guess I missed the part of the conversation.

I don't quite understand the concern with multiple passes on balance changes to try and prevent over correcting as it seems they have done with Admech and Custodes ( to a lesser degree ).

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
It feels like some armies are being punished hard for the abuses of others.

In my experience, Chaos Knights really want to load up on warlord traits and relics because they just aren't killy/survivable enough without them, given the sheer volume of crazy buffs others can pile on. Now, I have to decide between important upgrades or having enough CP to do basic things like rotate shields (which now costs 2CP for anything bigger than a War Dog). All because Tyranids drop 3 stratagems on a unit at once?

My relationship with tournaments was tenuous, at best. I think I'm done.

Just go to tournaments and use the stratagem for 1CP. If they catch you go 'oops I got a rule wrong' then go back to 1CP the next game. There's no punishment.

Did... you just suggest cheating?

Combination of tongue-in-cheek and exasperation at how much of the tourney scene condones cheating in all but name.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.

I guess I missed the part of the conversation.

I don't quite understand the concern with multiple passes on balance changes to try and prevent over correcting as it seems they have done with Admech and Custodes ( to a lesser degree ).

In this case, the question is whether the swing is too far on the CP side of things.

Two changes have been applied in this GT pack:
- Reduction in the starting number of CPs
- Free WLT & Relic replaced with 1CP stratagems for each

If you were talking about taking multiple passes to balance things out, you'd normally start with one or the other, not both - then assess the impact of that change. Has balance improved sufficiently? Awesome, move on. If not, try the other, probably rolling back the first. If, following another test cycle, you're still not happy, then you try both.

If you drop both changes at the same time, it makes it hard to see which is having what impact on the game - and that's before factoring the various other changes in the pack (like the secondaries and points).

I mean you can do that type of nitpicking separation if you like. However if the change is “starting with significantly less CP” then it is one goal via multiple changes.

Like the dataslate was “reduced lethality in the game” and so that was accomplished via multiple changes at the same time.

It’s fine to not like a change, it’s an opinion overall. I don’t like it, but I also can see why overall it *helps* with solving a lot of problems that we see in competitive play: which is who the tournament pack is designed for.

If it goes to far? Can be reverted in 6 months or via a dataslate sooner. I would rather see what happens since we don’t even know what lists will look like(don’t even have points or secondaries yet). Hard for me to take any declarations of outcomes seriously.

Whole point of the mission packs is to mix things up and prevent it from getting stale. Did people think everyone other than them would be the one doing the changes?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I just find it interesting how people can make definitive claims about one aspect having X impact on the meta, when we have at least two other big changes in the pipe that we have next to zero information about.

Wait and see is “let’s get the whole picture before judging it based on the bottom left corner”. I fully admit I am not a fan of the no free wlt and relic, but I am a fan of the 6CP limit. I think overall it will be healthier for the game, and the free wlt/relic can be walked back in the next 6 months if people are still upset about it after 3 weeks.

Any further restrictions are always going to hit certain armies more than others, however I genuinely think this will be better for the health of the game in the long run.

That's part of the problem. They're changing so many things at once it's impossible to tell what did what and how to fix it if it creates problems.

Say Eldar shoot up to 80% winrate after this; is it the mission changes, secondary changes, point changes, cp changes, or relic/wt changes that did it?

You know, this is a very good point. Robin Cruddace apparently has a PhD in physics. Yet he has demonstrated repeatedly that he (and the rest of the rules team) has a very tenuous grasp on probability and statistics, and now, it seems he (and the rest of the rules team) don't have much in the way of comprehension of the scientific method either.

Why is it that GW throws the incrementalism out the window when it affects all factions? It seems to me they have it backwards. I'd rather see significant nerfs/buffs to individual factions (and especially datasheets) and incremental changes to the core rules. That seems like the way to make a living edition IMO.

Most of the games industry is like this these days (or seems to be). Sometimes I think its a reaction to nerdy 'origins' of the modern games industry in the 70s/80s (yes, yes, wargames are older, but I'm talking about the modern businesses), and an industry-wide move away from accounting and statistics as a core part of games. Paizo actively suspended (and in a few cases, banned) people from their forums for focusing on the math and statistics of the playtests of pathfinder 1 and 2, and demanded play anecdotes instead. WotC did so poorly with 4th edition D&D's skill challenge system that they revised it at least 7 times before admitting they didn't actually use that system in house.

I find it baffling to not focusing on the statistics of the math parts of a system, but I keep seeing it, particularly in the bigger companies in the industry.

I think a big part of it is that we kind of saw the limits of pushing how "fair" we can make games. As much as I am a competitive player at heart, I've come to recognize that when you focus too much on mathematical balance, its easy to lose sight of game feel and end up with something that might be fair, but isn't really all the fun. You narrow your design options down to very safe choices and drain the experience of a lot of its excitement.

As much as the hardcore crowd drives the game and keeps it in the spotlight, it doesn't really thrive unless it charms the masses and unfortunately, the hardcore crowd tends to demand a lot of the charm be stripped away. For example, I've been getting back to fighting games and while streamed matches are fun to watch, when you get to playing and realize that no one will play on anything other than training stage or else they might have a slightly suboptimal chance of victory.... it kind of kills some of the fun.

I think the whole gaming industry kind of experienced this as of late, whether it be e-sports, or miniatures, or tabletop RPGs. The pursuit of technical perfection not really being worth the investment. Right now, we seem to be seeing a lot of attempts at finding a middle ground. Currently that seems to be a lot of Flavor of the Month design, but I think the real solution seems to be a lot looser overall structure that relies more on game feel than hard numbers.

 Leth wrote:
I mean you can do that type of nitpicking separation if you like. However if the change is “starting with significantly less CP” then it is one goal via multiple changes.

Like the dataslate was “reduced lethality in the game” and so that was accomplished via multiple changes at the same time.

It’s fine to not like a change, it’s an opinion overall. I don’t like it, but I also can see why overall it *helps* with solving a lot of problems that we see in competitive play: which is who the tournament pack is designed for.

If it goes to far? Can be reverted in 6 months or via a dataslate sooner. I would rather see what happens since we don’t even know what lists will look like(don’t even have points or secondaries yet). Hard for me to take any declarations of outcomes seriously.

Whole point of the mission packs is to mix things up and prevent it from getting stale. Did people think everyone other than them would be the one doing the changes?

You're kind of sidestepping the point. CP isn't the only thing that changed. We'll be having changes to Points, missions, and secondaries as well. If the game gets less balance as a result of the changes, specifically if it gets DANGEROUSLY less balanced like pre-nerf harlequins or Nids if they hadn't axed Crusher Stampede, what change do they revert? What screwed up the balance? How do they tell definitively?

If Nids suddenly start scoring 40-45 secondary points consistently across all lists is that because the rebalanced secondaries are too easy or is it because the changes to mission primary facilitate the Nids gameplan enough that they don't need to invest as many resources in scoring it and can focus more energy on secondaries?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW hits something with the nerf hammer twice, never just once. It's been talked about in this thread, and many others.

I guess I missed the part of the conversation.

I don't quite understand the concern with multiple passes on balance changes to try and prevent over correcting as it seems they have done with Admech and Custodes ( to a lesser degree ).

In this case, the question is whether the swing is too far on the CP side of things.

Two changes have been applied in this GT pack:
- Reduction in the starting number of CPs
- Free WLT & Relic replaced with 1CP stratagems for each

If you were talking about taking multiple passes to balance things out, you'd normally start with one or the other, not both - then assess the impact of that change. Has balance improved sufficiently? Awesome, move on. If not, try the other, probably rolling back the first. If, following another test cycle, you're still not happy, then you try both.

If you drop both changes at the same time, it makes it hard to see which is having what impact on the game - and that's before factoring the various other changes in the pack (like the secondaries and points).

That helps to clarify - thanks.

I think this logic is working on the expectation that these two changes hold the same goal. One reduces the pool of CP available at the start of a game. The other reduces the prevalence of relics and traits. That buying into traits and relics also reduces your starting CP is a consequence, but not necessarily the ultimate goal since you as a player have the choice to not reduce your CP pool further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
You're kind of sidestepping the point. CP isn't the only thing that changed. We'll be having changes to Points, missions, and secondaries as well. If the game gets less balance as a result of the changes, specifically if it gets DANGEROUSLY less balanced like pre-nerf harlequins or Nids if they hadn't axed Crusher Stampede, what change do they revert? What screwed up the balance? How do they tell definitively?

If Nids suddenly start scoring 40-45 secondary points consistently across all lists is that because the rebalanced secondaries are too easy or is it because the changes to mission primary facilitate the Nids gameplan enough that they don't need to invest as many resources in scoring it and can focus more energy on secondaries?

The common outcome seems to be that secondaries will be less likely to be maxed. The armies that could max them would be the ones who had easy ways to remove models off an objective and quick units to score stranglehold. Additionally, the interactivity of the secondaries is increasing like with the Guard stuff or with Engage requiring a deeper committal to the table quarter.

This tells me that secondaries aren't likely to throw the game for a loop.

Missions are pretty faction agnostic and I don't expect any element there to upset the game even if one or two are stinkers since we have 9 to choose from.

So that leaves points and that only becomes problematic if GW goes too heavy or to light depending on faction.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think this logic is working on the expectation that these two changes hold the same goal. One reduces the pool of CP available at the start of a game. The other reduces the prevalence of relics and traits. That buying into traits and relics also reduces your starting CP is a consequence, but not necessarily the ultimate goal since you as a player have the choice to not reduce your CP pool further.

I think these aren't even both changes intended to reduce the starting CP Rule, although they have the complimentary effect.

Making all Warlord Traits and Relics cost CP is a way of reducing the power level of the game since taking the first one of each cost a limited resource. The fact that that resource is even more precious than it was before could easily be seen as a bonus effect. Is this relic worth 1/6 of your starting CP is a much bigger question than is it worth 1/12 of your starting CP.

Then there is the extra constraint regarding that detachment choice. Spending half your CP budget to avoid having a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade is a much costlier decision. So is adding that second detachment if the main purpose was to bring a second one-per-detachment model and stacking Warlord Traits and Relics on it.

 alextroy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think this logic is working on the expectation that these two changes hold the same goal. One reduces the pool of CP available at the start of a game. The other reduces the prevalence of relics and traits. That buying into traits and relics also reduces your starting CP is a consequence, but not necessarily the ultimate goal since you as a player have the choice to not reduce your CP pool further.

I think these aren't even both changes intended to reduce the starting CP Rule, although they have the complimentary effect.

Making all Warlord Traits and Relics cost CP is a way of reducing the power level of the game since taking the first one of each cost a limited resource. The fact that that resource is even more precious than it was before could easily be seen as a bonus effect. Is this relic worth 1/6 of your starting CP is a much bigger question than is it worth 1/12 of your starting CP.

Then there is the extra constraint regarding that detachment choice. Spending half your CP budget to avoid having a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade is a much costlier decision. So is adding that second detachment if the main purpose was to bring a second one-per-detachment model and stacking Warlord Traits and Relics on it.

Yea that's a good angle as well.

I think the problem is you are fighting a subjective opinion.

My opposition isn't in balance. Its in interest. Freely available WLT/Relics allowed for making characters "your dudes", since the scope for doing so had largely been taken out of the datasheets.

"Its fine, in competitive games you only ever saw the same combos and 90% might never have been printed" isn't really a response either. If you want a reduction in power, nerf the good ones. (This arguably also applies to people using a bunch of CP over turns 1 and 2.)

Instead we are doubling down on the cookie cutter or nothing.

Alleged point leaks from reddit:

Custodes

Salvo launcher on bikes +10 instead of +5

Trajann Valoris +30

Contemptor-Achillus Dreadnought +10

Contemptor-Galatus Dreadnought +5

Venatari Custodians -5

Mani's leaks were right and Custodes get nerfed even more.

CWE, BA, Tau and DE points (leaks)

RUMORS

CWE: Baharot +50 Farseer +20 Avengers +2 Hawks +4

BA: Sanguinary Guards -1 Death company -3 Dante +10 Sanguinor +15

DE: Wrack +2 Clawed Fiend -15

TAU: commanders +20 Kroots +2 Hammerheads +15 Crysis on base +10

Ouch CWD, BA big if true, clawed fiend feels like a typo, Tau back to school. As usual copium or hopium to be used by user discretion.

Death Guard leaks

Mortarion -15

Plague Marines -4

Tallyman +10

Hellbrute -5

Death Guard Possesed -5 (ppm!)

Deathshroud Terminators +5

Blightlord Terminators - 2

Myphitic Blighthaulers -10

Foetid Bloat-Drone +5 for Fleshmower

Plagueburst Crawler -15

Same source as for Custodes

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Space Marines CA Leaks

Apparently leaks are coming up faster and faster



Primaris Chaplain on bike +10

Intercessor Squad -2 (ppm)

Assault Intercessor Squad -1 (ppm)

Incursors Squad -1 (ppm)

Heavy Intercessor Squad -3 (ppm)

Impulsor -15

Redemptor Dreadnought +5 for Macro Plasma Incinerator

Reiver Squad +2 (ppm)

Land Speeder Storm +5

Inceptors +3 (ppm)

Repulsor Executioner -10

Eradicators +3 (ppm)

Baal Predator +15

Predator Annihilator -10

Predator Destructor -10

Firestrike Servo-Turrets -5

Hammerfall Bunker -10

Woot? Pcb keeps getting point drops? That really such a weak for dg? Would have　been expecting drops elsewhere over that.

 Jidmah wrote:
Alleged point leaks from reddit:

Reiver Squad +2 (ppm)

What have Reivers done to deserve that?

tneva82 wrote:
Woot? Pcb keeps getting point drops? That really such a weak for dg? Would have　been expecting drops elsewhere over that.

Well, it did get a rather hefty nerf to its main cannon and it's pretty much the only model in that army that can perform the role it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

beast_gts wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Alleged point leaks from reddit:

Reiver Squad +2 (ppm)

What have Reivers done to deserve that?

There is a good chance these include typos, like - being flipped to +
There also is a non-zero chance that the marine one is a troll post as it has been made by a different account than the others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Same poster as DG and Custodes:

SoB point changes
40k Discussion
Battle Sisters -1

Repentias +2

Battle Sisters -1

Dogmata+5

Imagifier-10

Repentias +2

Seraphim -2

Zephyrim -2

Sacresants -1

Celestians -1

Immolator -5

Decent changes, an average list going down in points or staying the same despite top armies getting nerfed.

Didn't we get a leak about Seraphim/Zephyrim going down in points the other day?

I don’t buy any of the leaks for any of their fully digital products.

So do the new points come out tomorrow when pre-orders go up, or next week when the book comes out?

Tyel wrote:
I think the problem is you are fighting a subjective opinion.

My opposition isn't in balance. Its in interest. Freely available WLT/Relics allowed for making characters "your dudes", since the scope for doing so had largely been taken out of the datasheets.

"Its fine, in competitive games you only ever saw the same combos and 90% might never have been printed" isn't really a response either. If you want a reduction in power, nerf the good ones. (This arguably also applies to people using a bunch of CP over turns 1 and 2.)

Instead we are doubling down on the cookie cutter or nothing.

But that isn't correct. You can still take them. You just need to deal with the cost of going all in on them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So do the new points come out tomorrow when pre-orders go up, or next week when the book comes out?

I haven't seen it confirmed either way, but I'd suspect alongside the actual release - maybe on the Friday the day before.

And dammit, people - the SoB leaks were meant to be of points increases to set ERJACK off again...

The Space Marine leaks were from a reddit account that hasn't been active in a year and only talkex about Gwent so...salt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Didn't we get a leak about Seraphim/Zephyrim going down in points the other day?

Yeah, i matches these, though I don't know if that makes them more or less trustworthy.

The changes make a lot of sense though. The only ones I would add are drops to exorcists, castigators, and armorium cherubs.

The points aside from the marines look sane though I am not sure how I feel about the PBC being cheaper than my Vindicator, but it isn't crazy.

Custodes points were anticipated - those lists were doing well, BUT here's hoping maybe they peel back something from the dataslate. If any of this is true, of course.

 Jidmah wrote:
Alleged point leaks from reddit:

I've seen a couple of people on Discord involved in recent codex leaks state that these points are fake. The Reddit threads have also been removed.