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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Grey40k wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

Yes but granularity is gained by increasing everything the same amount and then using that extra space to adjust.

We obviously don't have the complete picture but I can't imagine a scenario where after adding multiple anti horde mechanics to the core ruleset you settle on the increase we've seen here in relation to a known power option in the Intercessors.

Why wouldn't giving VP per actual value in points killed work?

Because killing 6 points of Cultist is not the same as killing 6 points of Custodes.

Really? Any other point table wouldn't be even worse? How would you "fairly" award VP per kill then?

Karol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.

Especially when they weren't increased equally. They could've just doubled everything as is now and then wait for making Chapter Approved to do more adjustments. It was likely a conversation of "how about we increase X by Y points" and they just rolled with it.

I disagree.

An upscaling doesn't need to be something huge like a 100%, even a 30% upscale gives a lot more design space.

They are also merging this upscale with a repointing pass, so obviously things are not going to get upped by the same value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.

Except that this already happened relatively recently with the launch of 8th?

for me 2 years is not a recently. I don't know how many models were being used in 7th ed, but non of the armies being used in 8th looked small. The only small army was the BAscouts+castellan+loyal32 and it still was over 50 models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Upscaling of the point costs to allow more granularity and to reduce the number of models on the field is another one of the things that were being requested.

It is hard to trust GW making good point changes, specialy if there are no known players from your faction in the design studio. Plus for all we know we may end up playing more then 2000pts in models from 8th ed. I have strong doubt GW would want people to play and most important buy, fewer models to play.

Especially when they weren't increased equally. They could've just doubled everything as is now and then wait for making Chapter Approved to do more adjustments. It was likely a conversation of "how about we increase X by Y points" and they just rolled with it.

There are a lot of assumptions on how GW has dropped the ball on this, based solely on information about two units, and no wargear. It's a little premature to be calling this busted with so little information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
for me 2 years is not a recently. I don't know how many models were being used in 7th ed, but non of the armies being used in 8th looked small. The only small army was the BAscouts+castellan+loyal32 and it still was over 50 models.

That's because due to how CP generated horde units where more valuable than more elite units, often only existing to protect one or two bomb units as they only otherwise existed as a CP tax in many lists.

I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.

Exactly my thought too. It makes chaffe horde units more valuable and needing a points cost to balance that increased utility in the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:
because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?

GW balancing their rules to tackle a problem that was a problem years ago but isn't now is par for the course though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fixed damage of some kind would be a giant start.

I have problems with really swingy weapons as much as the next guy, the problem with AT weapons isn't their inability to kill things. Their problem is that the "everything can wound everything" toughness chart means that mid-strength multi-shot mid-range damage weapons are just superior. If you're wounding on 5's, but sending out 3 times as many shots and still causing 2-3 damage per hit, who needs anti-tank weapons?

Anti-tank should have a minimum damage + a D3. Like 3+D3 for Lascannons. Or 2+D3 for Krack Missiles.

And I don't hate the "everything can hurt everything" but maybe what we need is a keyword that makes targetting monsters and vehicles more valuable (like maybe anything without the keyword loses 1AP to a minimum of +1 to the target's save or something).

I think most weapons should have X+D3 rather than just D6's. So many stupidly swingy weapons would be fixed by changing to an X+D3 method (flamers, venom cannons, etc.). This applies not just to shots fired, but damage as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There are a lot of assumptions on how GW has dropped the ball on this, based solely on information about two units, and no wargear. It's a little premature to be calling this busted with so little information.

It's not an assumption. It's pattern recognition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think most weapons should have X+D3 rather than just D6's. So many stupidly swingy weapons would be fixed by changing to an X+D3 method (flamers, venom cannons, etc.). This applies not just to shots fired, but damage as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There are a lot of assumptions on how GW has dropped the ball on this, based solely on information about two units, and no wargear. It's a little premature to be calling this busted with so little information.

It's not an assumption. It's pattern recognition.

Pattern recognition based on old patterns that aren't as valid as they used to be.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Pattern recognition based on old patterns that aren't as valid as they used to be.

I see no evidence of their lack of validity. Again, look at the state 8th is in now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Pattern recognition based on old patterns that aren't as valid as they used to be.

I see no evidence of their lack of validity. Again, look at the state 8th is in now.

Look at the actual actions by the studio compared to the actions of the studio in the past. More frequent patching, attempts at rebalancing, actual tournament presence to collect data to better understand the things people get stuck on or the things people aren't having fun with and then attempting to create fixes to factions.

And that's not even getting into the Chapter Approved stuff.

The only thing actively hurting the game right now (that isn't being patch in 9th, as far as we know so far) is the dominance of certain Marine builds (even if melee improves I don't see Black Templars sitting on the top of any meta lists) but we can't even prove that they will or won't still sit there after the 9th ed update.

Look, I get setting expectations low, but the actions of the studio have been a large net positive over the actions they used to pull in the past.

Adding 10 to negative 100 still results in a negative.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Adding 10 to negative 100 still results in a negative.

I don't agree that 8th sits that low. But I'm not dragging baggage into this edition, or into 9th and judging them based on the the way they operated under Kirby's "leadership".

Heck, most of the people that the community complained about on the rules team have left, moved onto AoS or only do lore writing these days. The only one left from the old team we know of is Cruddace and I haven't heard anything regarding him in some time, so maybe he's not as involved as he once was.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Adding 10 to negative 100 still results in a negative.

I don't agree that 8th sits that low. But I'm not dragging baggage into this edition, or into 9th and judging them based on the the way they operated under Kirby's "leadership".

Heck, most of the people that the community complained about on the rules team have left, moved onto AoS or only do lore writing these days. The only one left from the old team we know of is Cruddace and I haven't heard anything regarding him in some time, so maybe he's not as involved as he once was.

The point is, "Doing better" doesn't mean "Doing good."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?

GW balancing their rules to tackle a problem that was a problem years ago but isn't now is par for the course though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fixed damage of some kind would be a giant start.

I have problems with really swingy weapons as much as the next guy, the problem with AT weapons isn't their inability to kill things. Their problem is that the "everything can wound everything" toughness chart means that mid-strength multi-shot mid-range damage weapons are just superior. If you're wounding on 5's, but sending out 3 times as many shots and still causing 2-3 damage per hit, who needs anti-tank weapons?

Yeah, there's a lot of return to the 6E/7E paradigm of anti-infantry and medium strength weapons being put to far too effective AT/anti-monster use, why bother with a trio of Lascannons when you can roll around with small arms sporting -2AP and various reroll and to-hit/wound bonuses that'll match the AT guns for damage output and do double duty as muppet mowers?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Adding 10 to negative 100 still results in a negative.

I don't agree that 8th sits that low. But I'm not dragging baggage into this edition, or into 9th and judging them based on the the way they operated under Kirby's "leadership".

Heck, most of the people that the community complained about on the rules team have left, moved onto AoS or only do lore writing these days. The only one left from the old team we know of is Cruddace and I haven't heard anything regarding him in some time, so maybe he's not as involved as he once was.

The point is, "Doing better" doesn't mean "Doing good."

I still disagree. 8th was doing good. I'm honestly hoping 9th will be doing great.

Now don't get that confused, good is not the same as perfect, it means they finally hit the same bar 5th edition was on in terms of how enjoyable I found the game. It's not perfect, but neither was 5th. But it's also a lot easier to pick up and learn and it has a LOT less of the sort of bad play experiances that GW was becoming known for.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
because hordes were a issue excactly how long in 8th? At the start? which then promptly got nerfed so hard that no more horde showed up, heck even orks got the hit. So we have a system skewing against a "potential" skew listtype which hasn't been an issue for 3/4 of the whole previous edition?

GW balancing their rules to tackle a problem that was a problem years ago but isn't now is par for the course though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fixed damage of some kind would be a giant start.

I have problems with really swingy weapons as much as the next guy, the problem with AT weapons isn't their inability to kill things. Their problem is that the "everything can wound everything" toughness chart means that mid-strength multi-shot mid-range damage weapons are just superior. If you're wounding on 5's, but sending out 3 times as many shots and still causing 2-3 damage per hit, who needs anti-tank weapons?

There WAS a problem for them killing things because of that seeing damage.

I'm interested to see what they do with morale. I'd like to see single models be affected by it.

Having shooting work like combat would be cool too.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
But so far it looks like 9th is going to favor loyalist marines at the start. An emphasis on mono faction armies, which loyalists get strong bonuses for already. Weapons that are better against hordes, helping elite armies. A mere 17% increase in price for intercessors compared to a 50% increase for cultists. Fixed cp when loyalist's free abilities mean they don't need as much as other armies. 9th isn't going to affect the loyalist marine meta, at least at the start.

Bud I am more sick of marines than most folks I know but this comment is gonna earn a dismissive "burn your models" from me.

We know two point values so far, and the barest details of almost every changed mechanic. Two out of....gotta be over 2000 point values in the game, doesn't it? We're gonna make that call on literally 0.01% of the info?

I said at the start. Just reading the signs. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.

I mean the Info we have atleast for me gives me second thoughts.

We know that vigilus and PA remain, through that we know how the factions atleast initially will play .
We know the cp now which is a trickle plus gamesize.
We also know that Performance of Units will not really Change except in regards to points .

I am cautiously optimistic still because fixed cp and trickle were things i really wanted, if the stratagems were rebalanced accordingly per faction which we as of yet have no indication that that happened.
This is my Main point of concern , well that and Basically Siting another Edition out for my r&h but that is another Story.

I'm hoping a stratagem rebalance is part of the day one errata. Otherwise this system will benefit some armies more than others. Hopefully that's what they're doing.

As for R&H, I'm worried that even if we get new rules the anti-cheap infantry trend we're seeing could leave them DOA. That and the points changes have me even more interested in seeing these mythical New Forge World Books. I can't believe they'd actually increase the price of the marine super heavys. If they do I guess my big toys will be sitting out for a while too. Have to wait and see.

ClockworkZion wrote:Anti-tank should have a minimum damage + a D3. Like 3+D3 for Lascannons. Or 2+D3 for Krack Missiles.

That's how I would do it. Works for the Executioner's main gun, works for my Cerberus. They could be doing something like that. I doubt they've announced every change.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm interested to see what they do with morale. I'd like to see single models be affected by it.

Having shooting work like combat would be cool too.

Me too. They said Night Lords would be better. I want to see how. If it's true then I'm even more excited for this edition, despite my other trepidations.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:Anti-tank should have a minimum damage + a D3. Like 3+D3 for Lascannons. Or 2+D3 for Krack Missiles.

That's how I would do it. Works for the Executioner's main gun, works for my Cerberus. They could be doing something like that. I doubt they've announced every change.

This, or replace D6 with 2D3, or a roll of 1 or 2 counts as 3.

I prefer 2D3 in all instances of D6. Anything to remove the super swingy weapons.

I prefer 3 instead of 1 or 2. Because its always at least 3, and you only roll one dice. Rolling less dice is always good.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.

Chances are hordes like cultists will see more threat coming from vehicles now with the new blast rules and that vehicles can shoot in close combat. That's a considerable change and nerf to lowly units. No longer can a termagant deny a tank its shooting just by hugging it, and that tank can possibly kill a ton of termagants in a single shooting with the new blast rules.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.

Chances are hordes like cultists will see more threat coming from vehicles now with the new blast rules and that vehicles can shoot in close combat. That's a considerable change and nerf to lowly units. No longer can a termagant deny a tank its shooting just by hugging it, and that tank can possibly kill a ton of termagants in a single shooting with the new blast rules.

I was thinking about this and honestly the blast rule buffs Guard tanks the most, though it'll help the Vindicator as well, by Guard has the highest number of weapons that were traditionally "blast" in the past.

Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I know we are looking at 9th as if its 8th which is part of the issue with cultist pts vs intercessor pts. However, if missions offer objectives where you have to give up moving/shooting/assault to achieve then a cultist is a more efficient investment than a intercessor. You are not really using right now for anything but screening and CP farming (and Chaos Marines sucking). But I give up less to cap an objective with a cultist squad than an intercessor squad. I can take a bunch of cultists and have points probably to take a ton of other cool stuff. It sounds like Primaris will have to think about how they do things in missions as something not shooting or assaulting is not easy to just give up.

Chances are hordes like cultists will see more threat coming from vehicles now with the new blast rules and that vehicles can shoot in close combat. That's a considerable change and nerf to lowly units. No longer can a termagant deny a tank its shooting just by hugging it, and that tank can possibly kill a ton of termagants in a single shooting with the new blast rules.

I was thinking about this and honestly the blast rule buffs Guard tanks the most, though it'll help the Vindicator as well, by Guard has the highest number of weapons that were traditionally "blast" in the past.

We also don't know how much blast weapons will cost. There could be a big price for all those shots.

 p5freak wrote:
Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.

How does that help Guard/Orks/'Nids then?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.

How does that help Guard/Orks/'Nids then?

they are perfectly fine and balanced, they still can defeat SM, which is infact too good for them /S