Switch Theme:

Whats the reason behind almost every model receiving point increase?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:

LunarSol wrote:Shrinks the size of the game since people didn't go for 1850. Also gives them room to cut points in the CA.

If they do the latter doesn't that render the former null and void?


Why yes it does, at which point the game will feel bloated and in need of a new edition.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Ca didn't reduce prices for all units. It nerfed some into oblivion. And the new ca hasn't fixed that.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





washington state USA

 Overread wrote:
Every wargame has a two sided battle when it comes to models.

Look at Infinity, Warmachine, Malifaux etc... Pretty much all of those games started life as small skirmish games. Throw down a handful of models and you've got an "army/force". GW was much the same - go back in time and look at some earlier armies and a handful of models counts as an army.

However as a game matures two things happen side by side.

1) The company releases more and more models for each army/force within the range. Diversifying options, creating new choices and new niches and features. Sometimes its subtle shifts, other times whole new classes of models are added - eg when GW went for dedicated air units or super heavies.

2) The gamers who are long term supporting customers continually grow their armies. Gaining more and and more models


So you often see games gradually grow the "base" game size because both the customer and the company benefit from it.


However at some point you get a problem because the bigger the standard armies get, the harder it is to get new people into the game. Especially in regions with smaller hobby groups where new people might come in ones and twos - rather than big active areas that might get a small handful in bunches.
Now at this point companies can push investment into alternative game options - splitting the community a bit, but creating diverse options.

Eg Warmachine introduced an unbound option for big games; meanwhile GW has recently pushed modes like Killteam and Warcry.


However sometimes you also have to push lowering the diversity and restructuring the core game to lower the costs of getting a "full army" for standard play.

Yes having a bigger target means customers are encouraged to spend more, but you have to reign it in against the perceived buy-in cost for new customers. Make it too high and, along with other factors, you can end up with one of the major reasons that Old World fantasy struggled for years to recruit and retain new customers/gamers




The problem with comparing those games is for say like infinity. the original designed system literally is not designed to be bigger than a skirmish game. otherwise the mechanics simply fall apart. warmachine has much the same problem. go above 50 points and the game gets really clunky. The broad range of available units allows players to have a large collection for variety by swapping out unit A for unit C.

GW addressed this when they went from skirmish mechanics in RT/2nd ed to 3rd ed where they changed the rules to push the game from skirmish into force/army based play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/30 18:04:52


 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







I wonder if they're doing the points rescale to try and bring "game size" into line with Sigmar so they can make both games use the same table sizes for the same points values?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Why won't GW go full battle system and not skirmish system. Would be easier to balance. Instead of trying to juggle different weapons, wargears etc Have something like a IG anti tank squad, IG anti infantry squad, and have them do specific damage to specific units. We wouldn't have to worry about scenic bases, models being modeled in certain way.

Unit homoganisation would also mean that trying to balance similar faction against each other would be easier.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





Beardedragon wrote:
whats the actual reason behind the over all point increase?

First of all there seems to be little incentive to do any kind of small 500 point battles. I know 500 isnt really the norm any way but it could be nice to do a small last battle that doesnt take too long. but with these point changes you can barely even make an army that makes sense.


But over all, what is the reason? did GW think battles took too long? I never thought it was a problem personally.


It creates a more balanced landscape from a points perspective.

GW also want shorter games, which less models will do.

GW also wants people to easily get into the game. Without having to spend a small fortune on plastic.

 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




UK

At the same time they will keep supporting Apocalypse and other large game formats as well.

   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Spoiler:
Beardedragon wrote:
whats the actual reason behind the over all point increase?

First of all there seems to be little incentive to do any kind of small 500 point battles. I know 500 isnt really the norm any way but it could be nice to do a small last battle that doesnt take too long. but with these point changes you can barely even make an army that makes sense.


But over all, what is the reason? did GW think battles took too long? I never thought it was a problem personally.


It creates a more balanced landscape from a points perspective.

GW also want shorter games, which less models will do.

GW also wants people to easily get into the game. Without having to spend a small fortune on plastic.

I'm sorry, how do you get "a more balanced landscape" with grots having the same price as guardsmen and cultists being 1 ppm more? All contemptors having the same price, despite differing stats and abilities, three of which are in the same faction, so no arguments for "internal balance" for explanation. Flamers same price as plasma. The list goes on. The last thing these new points are about is "a more balanced landscape".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/30 19:39:31


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:


I'm sorry, how do you get "a more balanced landscape" with grots having the same price as guardsmen and cultists being 1 ppm more? All contemptors having the same price, despite differing stats and abilities, three of which are in the same faction, so no arguments for "internal balance" for explanation. Flamers same price as plasma. The list goes on. The last thing these new points are about is "a more balanced landscape".


GW clearly wants IG players to run guardsman, and does not want csm or ork player to run a lot of grots or cultists. Same with flamers or plasma, the weapons don't matter, because GW doesn't want people to play with models that can take both of them.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Karol wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:


I'm sorry, how do you get "a more balanced landscape" with grots having the same price as guardsmen and cultists being 1 ppm more? All contemptors having the same price, despite differing stats and abilities, three of which are in the same faction, so no arguments for "internal balance" for explanation. Flamers same price as plasma. The list goes on. The last thing these new points are about is "a more balanced landscape".


GW clearly wants IG players to run guardsman, and does not want csm or ork player to run a lot of grots or cultists. Same with flamers or plasma, the weapons don't matter, because GW doesn't want people to play with models that can take both of them.

That's a possible explanation, but as I said, it has nothing to do with "a balanced landscape", only gw enforcing how it wants armies to be constructed.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Kind of a depends on what new stuff GW plans for each army for 9th. Now I would like for this to be true. Maybe the future could bring some crazy ork artilery , which could over use grots for some NPE combos. So GW decided to kill the grot play style in advance. Or GW wants csm players to use, the new, csm models and not cultists, so they disentice people from taking cultists.

But of course it could be just something random, and they do it just that people have as little of their 8th ed armies in their 9th ed armies.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

Points Values

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’.


GW’s own words on why they moved points up across the board. From https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Would have been nice if they hadn't destroyed what balance they had achieved by the end of 8th by making some dumber than two rocks changes to points. Before we even start on the indomitous cheese.
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Spoiler:
Beardedragon wrote:
whats the actual reason behind the over all point increase?

First of all there seems to be little incentive to do any kind of small 500 point battles. I know 500 isnt really the norm any way but it could be nice to do a small last battle that doesnt take too long. but with these point changes you can barely even make an army that makes sense.


But over all, what is the reason? did GW think battles took too long? I never thought it was a problem personally.


It creates a more balanced landscape from a points perspective.

GW also want shorter games, which less models will do.

GW also wants people to easily get into the game. Without having to spend a small fortune on plastic.

I'm sorry, how do you get "a more balanced landscape" with grots having the same price as guardsmen and cultists being 1 ppm more? All contemptors having the same price, despite differing stats and abilities, three of which are in the same faction, so no arguments for "internal balance" for explanation. Flamers same price as plasma. The list goes on. The last thing these new points are about is "a more balanced landscape".


Because there is no meta right now. Most people don't even realize how much the game has changed.

Shooting was severely nerfed. Losing 3ish turns of shooting. Melee got hit from making tri-pointing not a sure thing. Overall shooting got hurt more then melee, but things are probably more balanced.

Horde got hit more then Elite armies, but again the game is probably more balanced.

The terrain changes are also changing everything up. Missions, board size, objectives. There is no way for them to know which models are going to do what.

 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Beardedragon wrote:
whats the actual reason behind the over all point increase?

First of all there seems to be little incentive to do any kind of small 500 point battles. I know 500 isnt really the norm any way but it could be nice to do a small last battle that doesnt take too long. but with these point changes you can barely even make an army that makes sense.


But over all, what is the reason? did GW think battles took too long? I never thought it was a problem personally.


It creates a more balanced landscape from a points perspective.

GW also want shorter games, which less models will do.

GW also wants people to easily get into the game. Without having to spend a small fortune on plastic.

I'm sorry, how do you get "a more balanced landscape" with grots having the same price as guardsmen and cultists being 1 ppm more? All contemptors having the same price, despite differing stats and abilities, three of which are in the same faction, so no arguments for "internal balance" for explanation. Flamers same price as plasma. The list goes on. The last thing these new points are about is "a more balanced landscape".


Because there is no meta right now. Most people don't even realize how much the game has changed.

Shooting was severely nerfed. Losing 3ish turns of shooting. Melee got hit from making tri-pointing not a sure thing. Overall shooting got hurt more then melee, but things are probably more balanced.

Horde got hit more then Elite armies, but again the game is probably more balanced.

The terrain changes are also changing everything up. Missions, board size, objectives. There is no way for them to know which models are going to do what.

So by "a more balanced landscape" you mean a new starting point which can then be adjusted once they have more information on exactly what's good and what isn't under the new rules? So a reset, similar to the Indexes at the beginning of 8th. That's what I think it is, though poorly implemented. Is that what you mean? Or do you think these points are well balanced?
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Beardedragon wrote:
whats the actual reason behind the over all point increase?

First of all there seems to be little incentive to do any kind of small 500 point battles. I know 500 isnt really the norm any way but it could be nice to do a small last battle that doesnt take too long. but with these point changes you can barely even make an army that makes sense.


But over all, what is the reason? did GW think battles took too long? I never thought it was a problem personally.


It creates a more balanced landscape from a points perspective.

GW also want shorter games, which less models will do.

GW also wants people to easily get into the game. Without having to spend a small fortune on plastic.

I'm sorry, how do you get "a more balanced landscape" with grots having the same price as guardsmen and cultists being 1 ppm more? All contemptors having the same price, despite differing stats and abilities, three of which are in the same faction, so no arguments for "internal balance" for explanation. Flamers same price as plasma. The list goes on. The last thing these new points are about is "a more balanced landscape".


Because there is no meta right now. Most people don't even realize how much the game has changed.

Shooting was severely nerfed. Losing 3ish turns of shooting. Melee got hit from making tri-pointing not a sure thing. Overall shooting got hurt more then melee, but things are probably more balanced.

Horde got hit more then Elite armies, but again the game is probably more balanced.

The terrain changes are also changing everything up. Missions, board size, objectives. There is no way for them to know which models are going to do what.

So by "a more balanced landscape" you mean a new starting point which can then be adjusted once they have more information on exactly what's good and what isn't under the new rules? So a reset, similar to the Indexes at the beginning of 8th. That's what I think it is, though poorly implemented. Is that what you mean? Or do you think these points are well balanced?


I think they are more balanced then people realize. Do not I think they are perfect? No. I'm sure some adjustments will have to be made. But the way people are acting when they, for the most part, have no idea how these changes will actually affect the game is ridiculous.

 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Karol wrote:
Why won't GW go full battle system and not skirmish system. Would be easier to balance. Instead of trying to juggle different weapons, wargears etc Have something like a IG anti tank squad, IG anti infantry squad, and have them do specific damage to specific units. We wouldn't have to worry about scenic bases, models being modeled in certain way.

Unit homoganisation would also mean that trying to balance similar faction against each other would be easier.


Like Apocalypse?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Beardedragon wrote:
whats the actual reason behind the over all point increase?

First of all there seems to be little incentive to do any kind of small 500 point battles. I know 500 isnt really the norm any way but it could be nice to do a small last battle that doesnt take too long. but with these point changes you can barely even make an army that makes sense.


But over all, what is the reason? did GW think battles took too long? I never thought it was a problem personally.


It creates a more balanced landscape from a points perspective.

GW also want shorter games, which less models will do.

GW also wants people to easily get into the game. Without having to spend a small fortune on plastic.

I'm sorry, how do you get "a more balanced landscape" with grots having the same price as guardsmen and cultists being 1 ppm more? All contemptors having the same price, despite differing stats and abilities, three of which are in the same faction, so no arguments for "internal balance" for explanation. Flamers same price as plasma. The list goes on. The last thing these new points are about is "a more balanced landscape".


Because there is no meta right now. Most people don't even realize how much the game has changed.

Shooting was severely nerfed. Losing 3ish turns of shooting. Melee got hit from making tri-pointing not a sure thing. Overall shooting got hurt more then melee, but things are probably more balanced.

Horde got hit more then Elite armies, but again the game is probably more balanced.

The terrain changes are also changing everything up. Missions, board size, objectives. There is no way for them to know which models are going to do what.

So by "a more balanced landscape" you mean a new starting point which can then be adjusted once they have more information on exactly what's good and what isn't under the new rules? So a reset, similar to the Indexes at the beginning of 8th. That's what I think it is, though poorly implemented. Is that what you mean? Or do you think these points are well balanced?


I think they are more balanced then people realize. Do not I think they are perfect? No. I'm sure some adjustments will have to be made. But the way people are acting when they, for the most part, have no idea how these changes will actually affect the game is ridiculous.


I've played some admittedly smaller than 2k games and I'll say it now alot of the troops choice points are way different from anything resembling balanced.

Also round all the weapons to 5 points or 10 was another idiotic decision.
   
Made in dk
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin






 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
I think they are more balanced then people realize. Do not I think they are perfect? No. I'm sure some adjustments will have to be made. But the way people are acting when they, for the most part, have no idea how these changes will actually affect the game is ridiculous.

How well did the Iron Hands "wait and see" approach work? Not at all, they were busted after being nerfed the first time and there were internet monkies both on Dakka and on Youtube screaming that we should let things shake out and not even give them the first nerf, if it weren't for constant internet whinge then Iron Hands would have been unbeatable until the end of 8th and then none of the GW apologists would apologize for getting it wrong just like nobody admitted they were wrong about how necessary an immediate and massive nerf was to IH when the supplement came out. Stop trying to make the game stay terrible, because it is terrible, it might not be for Thousand Sons, it might not be for Necrons, but for a lot of factions internal balance is super bad right now and I think we're soon to find out that external balance is really freaking bad as well.

All you need to do to show that internal balance is bad is S+2 AP-4 D2 = S+1 AP-3 D1 on the same model. All you need to do to show that external balance is bad is compare the AM Infantry Squad nerf with the CE Guardian nerf knowing which unit was better among those two before the changes. GW do not have some secret sauce and the changes are not secretly balanced, they're bad and I think you are being overly optimistic about how well designed they were.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/31 08:03:53


 
   
Made in us
Unbalanced Fanatic






Slipspace wrote:
The official reason mentioned on a couple of streams was to create more granularity. I suspect reducing the game size was also a consideration. Sadly, the points were handled pretty badly so they haven't really increased granularity much, especially when you consider lots of equipment now costs a multiple of 5 points, even when that means you have multiple pieces of equipment all at the same cost when some are clearly better than the others.

The points update is probably the biggest screw-up I've seen from GW in a while. Given that 9th is an evolution of 8th I would have hoped they would have been able to come up with properly balanced points even while resetting everything to a new, slightly higher baseline. At the very least they shouldn't be charging for them and I think the changes are bad enough that GW should be seriously considering releasing a free points update document in the next month or two.

Actually, GW should probably stop charging for these kind of updates in general, but that's just wishful thinking.
It's shocking to see how many people have bought that line from GW, hook and sinker included. There are at least half a dozen people in this thread who seem to believe that GW mostly increased granularity in 9th, and didn't club it like a baby harp seal.

As Goonhammer noticed in their excellent article on 9th's point changes, it looks like GW gave all units a flat point increase, regardless of the percentage that it would affect them. To put on my tinfoil hat, this might have been the goal, to simplify 40k lists by making everything a multiple of 5. It's the same thing with AOS, where everything is a multiple of 10. It's something I really hate, personally, that they don't make AOS a 200 point game but still keep the extra zero as a marketing ploy, or for some reason that's even more petty.
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

Karol wrote:
Why won't GW go full battle system and not skirmish system. Would be easier to balance. Instead of trying to juggle different weapons, wargears etc Have something like a IG anti tank squad, IG anti infantry squad, and have them do specific damage to specific units. We wouldn't have to worry about scenic bases, models being modeled in certain way.


Except that we already have a game for that - it's called Apocalypse.


The real problem is that Apocalypse has been shoehorned into normal 40k. Thus, everything now has to be balanced around the existence of super-heavies, Imperial Knights, fliers, Primarchs etc. - all things which should have been confined to Apocalypse.

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Cynically think the game probably is more balanced right now than people realise - but that's because the virus continues to make mass playing difficult to impossible, and so its unclear what if any meta meaningfully exists.

So you are sort of in that phase of "I really enjoyed the Indexes/Ravening Hordes, because we hadn't yet discovered X+Y+Z=win rate of 60%-80% depending on what your opponent brings."

But yeah. The reasons GW stated are good ones. I'm just not convinced these changes accomplished any of them. It was funny watching Stu Black on the stream walk things back "yeah guys, we are only talking one squad of space marines". (GSC look sadly at the camera.)

So... extra granularity marginal at best, time saved marginal at best. Slightly cheaper to get into - but really, I think that objectives been better served by trying to give rules for playing at 500/1000 rather than how skewed it was before.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 vict0988 wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
I think they are more balanced then people realize. Do not I think they are perfect? No. I'm sure some adjustments will have to be made. But the way people are acting when they, for the most part, have no idea how these changes will actually affect the game is ridiculous.

How well did the Iron Hands "wait and see" approach work? Not at all, they were busted after being nerfed the first time and there were internet monkies both on Dakka and on Youtube screaming that we should let things shake out and not even give them the first nerf, if it weren't for constant internet whinge then Iron Hands would have been unbeatable until the end of 8th and then none of the GW apologists would apologize for getting it wrong just like nobody admitted they were wrong about how necessary an immediate and massive nerf was to IH when the supplement came out. Stop trying to make the game stay terrible, because it is terrible, it might not be for Thousand Sons, it might not be for Necrons, but for a lot of factions internal balance is super bad right now and I think we're soon to find out that external balance is really freaking bad as well.

All you need to do to show that internal balance is bad is S+2 AP-4 D2 = S+1 AP-3 D1 on the same model. All you need to do to show that external balance is bad is compare the AM Infantry Squad nerf with the CE Guardian nerf knowing which unit was better among those two before the changes. GW do not have some secret sauce and the changes are not secretly balanced, they're bad and I think you are being overly optimistic about how well designed they were.


The "Wait and see" approach works many more times than the "We are doomed" one.

For example, despite all the whines about SM being OP (mines included), those that are getting a few number of games are little by little getting into the mindset that they are not even top tier.

When so many things change at a time, defining what is balanced and what is not is a huge leap into the dark.

Sure, you can find some weird costs here and there, like grots and guardians, but 99% of the points assigned are in that area where they could be potentially reaonsable depending on how the game shapes up.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Who is saying marine's arn't top tier?

Genuinely curious as most of the games I've seen them used in on line they either won, or were taking really? Your taking that choices.

Most people haven't called them most improved but that's kind of a given when your the top most OP army anyway, you can't really improve from that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/31 09:09:44


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta 790516 10883951 wrote:
The "Wait and see" approach works many more times than the "We are doomed" one.

For example, despite all the whines about SM being OP (mines included), those that are getting a few number of games are little by little getting into the mindset that they are not even top tier.

When so many things change at a time, defining what is balanced and what is not is a huge leap into the dark.

Sure, you can find some weird costs here and there, like grots and guardians, but 99% of the points assigned are in that area where they could be potentially reaonsable depending on how the game shapes up.


If I quit the game after 6 months playing, I would have saved a lot of money on paying for not very fun games and two CA books that didn't fix much for my army. So the wait and see thing made me spend more money, and get little for it, as when GW finaly made good rules for my army the store closed. And who knows if there ever going to be a new one open here. The wait and see method is good for armies that are either on a good record with rules writen by GW like eldar, or with codex mariens who get updated twice every edition.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in dk
Been Around the Block




Danmark

 Galef wrote:
8th ed Chapter Approveds were a constant "race to the bottom" with most units getting decreases and just a few OP units getting increases.

But doing a game wide points reset with most lower end models going up, it creates more breathing room for units to be decreased in later Chapter Approveds.

It's all about proportion IMO. A 1ppm decrease on a 5pt model is a bigger deal than a 1ppm decrease on a 15pt model.
Having larger base points on even 1W INFANTRY models allows there to be granularity between them.

A good example IMO is the difference between Tactical Marines, Dire Avengers and Necron Warriors. I believe they were all 12ppm just before 9th but are now 15, 13 & 12 respectively.
You could argue that those could be swapped around but the point is that by having a larger "scale" of points, you are able to make them differ as those 3 units are indeed very different from each other.

-


it also invalidates the usage of Grots.

Who would pay effing 50 points for 10 grots

Hope, is the first step on the road to disappointment.

- About Dawn of War 3 
   
Made in gb
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut




There's a fair few people saying that of they wanted to promote smaller games use lower points or the community should have made that move already.

Simply put nobody would play smaller points because there's a large crowd of players who are fixated on "bigger is better" and like to see a big round number. There were threads here saying people would just play 2300 etc after the points changes because they like having more stuff. Same for the 2000+1 crowd.

Reducing army size takes options away and allows for more meaningful/challenging list creation, especially on smaller boards. But if they'd used a smaller number for "normal" people wouldn't have liked it seemingly, instead saying the game size is the same points but they've recosted, it creates some weird fallacy in players minds that the game size is the same but units are going to be more balanced.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Scheming Archon





Between the sacred silence and sleep.

Dudeface wrote:
There's a fair few people saying that of they wanted to promote smaller games use lower points or the community should have made that move already.

Simply put nobody would play smaller points because there's a large crowd of players who are fixated on "bigger is better" and like to see a big round number. There were threads here saying people would just play 2300 etc after the points changes because they like having more stuff. Same for the 2000+1 crowd.

Reducing army size takes options away and allows for more meaningful/challenging list creation, especially on smaller boards. But if they'd used a smaller number for "normal" people wouldn't have liked it seemingly, instead saying the game size is the same points but they've recosted, it creates some weird fallacy in players minds that the game size is the same but units are going to be more balanced.


While that is certainly true, GW did not simply double the points cost of all the units and equipment, they took the time to hamfistedly feth around with the relative points too. That latter part is what is inexplicable, and is what many are upset about.

Kabal of the Mon-keigh's Paw
Coven of the Screaming Statues

"Death is only a concern if you're both weak enough to be killed and dumb enough not to arrange your own resurrection." PM713
 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





Dudeface wrote:


Reducing army size takes options away and allows for more meaningful/challenging list creation, especially on smaller boards. But if they'd used a smaller number for "normal" people wouldn't have liked it seemingly, instead saying the game size is the same points but they've recosted, it creates some weird fallacy in players minds that the game size is the same but units are going to be more balanced.


So once again the Drukhari are ahead on the meta curve having most options kneecaped over last few editions along with points increases of no sense, okay the geedubs dont like Venom spam thats ok ill just go foot wychs or kabalites, or not, maybe i'll look at the other options...hey


"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Scheming Archon





Between the sacred silence and sleep.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


Reducing army size takes options away and allows for more meaningful/challenging list creation, especially on smaller boards. But if they'd used a smaller number for "normal" people wouldn't have liked it seemingly, instead saying the game size is the same points but they've recosted, it creates some weird fallacy in players minds that the game size is the same but units are going to be more balanced.


So once again the Drukhari are ahead on the meta curve having most options kneecaped over last few editions along with points increases of no sense, okay the geedubs dont like Venom spam thats ok ill just go foot wychs or kabalites, or not, maybe i'll look at the other options...hey



Yup. The issue is that the Drukhari as an army have a fairly narrow theme; that of fast moving, glass hammer,'space pirates'.

This was achieved through fielding lots of relatively fragile transports, carrying Wyches and/or Kabalites. Without the transports, Kabalites and Wyches, Drukhari stuggle to differentiate themselves, or in fact justify their existance, as a faction.

The exception to this is obviously Coven, but they are basically an alternative option to the primary theme. Coven (and Taloi in particular) have done ok out of this debacle, and the competitive Drukhari advice is now to field as much Coven and Taloi as you can in your army, and forget the glass hammer. This isn't an enjoyable prospect for me, and I don't think it's going to be fun to play against.

Kabal of the Mon-keigh's Paw
Coven of the Screaming Statues

"Death is only a concern if you're both weak enough to be killed and dumb enough not to arrange your own resurrection." PM713
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: