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.

There's been much made of the various price rises, but here's another interesting change that is mentioned, but rarely enumerated.
Points depreciation.

As the various editions have come, the number of points that a given model represents on the tabletop has decreased. Here's two blog posts covering 3 different armies and the depreciation in points from 1998 til today.

http://thearmycollector.blogspot.com/2011/09/ive-got-your-point-devaluation-right.html
http://thearmycollector.blogspot.com/2011/09/depreciating-value-round-two.html

The author compares army lists from GW's 1998 book "Collecting and Painting Wargames Armies" to the points values of armies today. Obviously some orgs and units don't quite line up, but for Space Marines, Dwarves, and Eldar he got points depreciations of 37, 17, and 47 percent respectively!

That's a rather large amount, and paired with rising prices and the prevailing view that 1500 points is now the standard army size and it's easy to see how getting into the hobby is a bigger undertaking and a more expensive one. Phrased differently, it could be said that a given figure now costs more, is worth less, and you need more of them.

I see the depreciation of points as a good thing myself. The game seems to be moving into a more balanced area as points get lowered (standardized). I generally like fielding more units. I also think it's easier to balance a larger force than a smaller one.

The big conclusion to be drawn from this is how much the GW playerbase has shrunk over the years.

If the 'average' army has dropped in point values by ~1/3, and the 'average' game size has increased by 1/2 then players need twice as many models to play an average game now versus then (by the way I am making these numbers up, although they are loosely based upon a very good analysis that Killkrazy presented in a different thread).

This means that for GW to continue to declare very similar overall sales numbers, then half as many people are playing their game (with twice as many models) assuming prices stay the same.

That's a pretty scary thought for people who get into the GW hobby for the relative safety of the brand name and the perception that there will always be a big GW player base to find games within.

@sourclams it's a good point but you're missing some stuff.

First off sales figures are just that, sales of new stuff each year. It does not take into account old stuff still being used or old stuff being resold.

My IG army consists of Tallarn (picked up in a Hong Kong shop where they'd been warming the shelf since the 90s) and now Necromunda Redemptionists and Cawdor (picked up on ebay).

I added some Valkyries and Chimera in 2009 but not much since then.

If I'm still playing in 5 years I will probably be using this army and not have added anything to GWs sales figures.

So I don't think the number of players has shrunk, there's just a lot more inventory out there for players to use without buying.

The figures shown n the blog also do not take into account game related changes and the revision of the rules although GW are certainly trying to increase the number of models included in a given army. I would suggest that this is especially true of vehicles. In RT/2nd ed a Land Raider cost 500 points now its 250 (I think).

@sourclams - the sales figures also do not show the move from blisters to box-sets over time. GW store used to be wall to wall blisters with boxes on the bottom shelf, now its more expensive boxes everywhere and the odd line of blisters. One would expect unit sales to decrease with this sort of shift.

I would also suggest that the number of clubs and stores (+ internet outlets?) would be a better indicator of total number of players. I would guess that this has increased over the longer term and the player base with it.

This is very interesting. I only really got into WHFB in 6th and 40K in 3rd, so I didn't even really notice just how much the points values have deprecated. I don't see how this would indicate anything but a shrinking player base if you have to buy more models for more money, but profits remain more or less stagnant, although the rather large second-hand market certainly must be some sort of factor.

Anyone care to take into account relative price reduction of increased plastics from '98 to today?

Nope. Thought not....

Finding new hobbyists must be getting harder given alternate gaming platforms, ie LAN gaming.

IMO people are generally less interested in the work behind models, cleaning mould lines and painting.

The risk is that critical mass among youngsters, if everyone at school is gaming then that is a different proposition than if your friends are LAN gaming.

Mum, can I spend on computer games and models? Umm, no.

Comparing points from 2nd ed to 3rd+ is is unfair, since the whole point structure was changed.

frenrik wrote:Comparing points from 2nd ed to 3rd+ is is unfair, since the whole point structure was changed.

I think you're making my point for me. The point structure was changed to make it so you had to have more figs to have the same point battle.

It would only be unfair of me to make the comparison if GW had also adjusted downward the number of points for a recommended battle. They didn't, they kept the recommended points for a battle the same while adjusting downward the average points-per-model.

frenrik wrote:Comparing points from 2nd ed to 3rd+ is is unfair, since the whole point structure was changed.

It's true that the point structure changed, but the point is still valid; what was a 2000 point Space Marine in 2nd edition wasn't one in third and certainly isn't now; if it's still legal, it's going to require a few new units to get up to 2000 points.

I mean, barring the changes in Wargear, the Space Marine army in the example was 100% legal in 3rd edition. I wish I had my codecies here so I could do a more direct comparison, but I unfortunately do not. It does seem to generally be true, however, that points values go downward and require new purchases, though it's generally two or three new kits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, I found 4th edition army builder files:

4th edition:

10 Tactical Marines with Lascannon, Plasma Gun, Frag and Krak Grenades, Sergeant with Terminator Honours (so he has two attacks) in a Rhino with Smoke Launchers and Extra Armour - 278pts

5th edition:

10 Tactical Marines with Lascannon, Plasma Gun, in a Rhino with Extra Armour (note that the Sergeant already has two attacks by default, the Tactical Marines already have Frag and Krak Grenades by default, and the Rhino has Smoke Launchers and Search Lights by default) - 240pts

That's a 38 point difference.

Give a 5th edition squad a meltagun and multi-melta instead of a plasma gun and lascannon, it costs ~225pts. The same squad would be ~260pts in 4th edition. 35 point difference.

So if you've got three such squads, suddenly in the switch from 4th to 5th, you're down ~105 points, and that's just from the Tactical Squads. Doing some math, if the rest of your army was, say:

a Master with Plasma Pistol and Power Weapon, Iron Halo, and Artificer Armour, (which would be a Chapter Master in 5th)
10 Scouts with a vet Sarge and 5 snipers
5 Assault Terminators
10 Assault Marines with a vet sarge with a Power Fist
Land Raider with Extra Armour

the difference between the two editions is around 90 points. So, combined with the above, your army is now 200 points less, which has to be replaced with something. IMO, not a huge deal, but even now there's a definite deprecation of points between editions. Note that I selected units at random with no thought as to how effective they'd be, but the principle is still the same; most units, overall, decreased in points.

From what I read, in WHFB, the core Ogre unit is something like 5 points less per model than it used to be, and considering the emphasis on big blocks of infantry in 8th, you're probably going to have to add a considerable number of Ogres to your army to remain viable, but I'm not entire sure as I'm unfamiliar with Ogres in general.

It's not like you've gotta buy a whole new army between editions (with the possible exception of the switch between 2nd and 3rd 40K and 5th and 6th Fantasy), but if you've been playing since 3rd/6th, assuming you owned only exactly what you needed to to field an army, you've had to part with a considerable chunk of change to keep up, for the most part. In a vacuum this doesn't really bother me, though.

Yes of course, since 1st edition to 5th there has been the gradual transformation of 40k from a skirmish game to a mass-battle game.

Obviously lowering points costs and the average game size (once upon a time 1500pts was the standard) will increase the amount of money needed to play the game.

It's for the same reason that specialist games (those where only a small monetary outlay is needed) were phased out of retail sales, and eventually even their use in game nights and are now only purchasable from a small and dark corner of the website.

This has been a strategy of the company going back at least 10-12 years, but has become more prominent I would say since Apocalypse and WFB 8th edition.

Personally I prefer Corvus Belli's (Infinity's) method of only needing a small outlay and army to play, but the models being so awesome that most people end up collecting more than one force even though they originally didn't intend to (Although the impetus is on the customer in this case).

sourclams wrote:If the 'average' army has dropped in point values by ~1/3, and the 'average' game size has increased by 1/2 ...

Where are you getting that game size has increased?

The 'standard' for 40K since 3rd editon was released has been 1500 points. The 'standard' in 2nd edition was 2000 points.

RatBot wrote:

frenrik wrote:Comparing points from 2nd ed to 3rd+ is is unfair, since the whole point structure was changed.

It's true that the point structure changed, but the point is still valid; what was a 2000 point Space Marine in 2nd edition wasn't one in third and certainly isn't now; if it's still legal, it's going to require a few new units to get up to 2000 points.

There's still a problem with this - the game was balanced for 2000 points in 2nd edition, and along with points restructuring, 3rd edition was rebalanced for 1500 points. While units got cheaper, the ideal size to play the game at dropped by a quarter as well.

Loki, are you sure? Because damn near every tournament I ever saw, and every game I played, was 1750 or 2000 points in 3rd ed.

RatBot wrote:Loki, are you sure? Because damn near every tournament I ever saw, and every game I played, was 1750 or 2000 points in 3rd ed.

That doesn't mean that's what GW balanced it for. Even they run tournaments still over 2000 points ('Ard Boyz, I'm looking at you). Since 3rd edition, 40k has been balanced towards 1500 points.

There's some blog post from an old playtester floating around where he talks about it, though I've lost the link.

-Loki- wrote:

RatBot wrote:Loki, are you sure? Because damn near every tournament I ever saw, and every game I played, was 1750 or 2000 points in 3rd ed.

That doesn't mean that's what GW balanced it for. Even they run tournaments still over 2000 points ('Ard Boyz, I'm looking at you). Since 3rd edition, 40k has been balanced towards 1500 points.

There's some blog post from an old playtester floating around where he talks about it, though I've lost the link.

Fine, but even taking that into account, the 2000 point 2nd edition army is notably less than 1500 points in 3rd, and a 1500 point army in 4th, according to my very rough calculations, is going to be closer to 1350 in 5th. Again, not a terribly big deal to me, but it still necessitates buying more models to get your army to where it once was. Not a big issue, except if they keep doing things this way the games in 8th or 9th edition are going to involve an unwieldy amount of miniatures, and woe betide the person who wants to start a new army.

It varies by armies. A 2nd edition 2000pt Space Marine army didn't need much to bring it up to a 1500pt 3rd edition army, though a 2nd edition Eldar army needed a few purchases to bring it up to 3rd edition.

And personally speaking, I have a Salamanders army from 3rd edition, which sat roughly at 1500pts. I was astonished to find myself hard pressed to fit it into a 1500pt Space Marine army in 5th edition (I got out of the hobby basically for all of 4th edition). I had to drop an entire tactical squad - I have no idea why, but it came out more pricey in 5th edition than it was in 3rd edition.

I've already seen this. Especially with some of the newer army books. And I haven't even been playing for a huge amount of time but I still remember how small some armies were. I remember when I first got into things the guy who taught me the ropes had a core army that was two tactical squads, some veterans, a captain, a command squad, and a land raider crusader. Maybe a Rhino or two on a good day.

But now that's 1500pts at most.

Interesting stuff. I mean codex creep is one thing but this is altogether different.

Just for a solid reference between 4th and 5th. This list wasn't really put together to be super-competitive, but I've run a similar army with quite a bit of success in friendly games:

Master
-Plasma Pistol
-Power Weapon
-Frag Grenades
-Krak Grenades
-Artificer Armour
-Iron Halo
153pts

5 Assault Terminators
-Land Raider Transport
--Extra Armour
455pts

608pts

10 Tactical Marines
-Missile Launcher
-Flamer
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Terminator Honours on Sargeant
-Rhino
--Search Lights
--Smoke Launchers
--Extra Armour
270pts

10 Tactical Marines
-Melta Gun
-Multi-Melta
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Terminator Honours on Sargeant
-Rhino
--Search Lights
--Smoke Launchers
--Extra Armour
--Hunter-Killer Missile
289pts

559pts
1167pts

10 Assault Marines
-Meltabombs
240pts
1392pts

Whirlwind
-Smoke Launchers
-Extra Armour
93pts
Total: 1500pts

5th:
Chapter Master
-Frag Grenades
-Krak Grenades
-Artificer Armour
-Iron Halo
-Plasma Pistol
-Power Weapon
170pts

5 Assault Terminators
-Land Raider
--Extra Armour
465pts
635pts



10 Tactical Marines
-Missile Launcher
-Flamer
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Rhino
--Search Lights
--Smoke Launchers
--Extra Armour
220pts

10 Tactical Marines
-Melta Gun
-Multi-Melta
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Rhino
--Search Lights
--Smoke Launchers
--Extra Armour
--Hunter-Killer Missile
235pts
1090pts

10 Assault Marines
190pts
1280pts

Whirlwind
-Extra Armour
100pts

1380pts

Note that Sergeants already have two attacks in 5th, so they don't have to spend 15 points on Terminator Honours as they did in 4th.


So again, even accepting 1500 as the standard points value, there's a difference for a lot of armies.

...I've completely forgotten what my point is in all this. It's late and I'm tired.

For comparison, here's the 2nd edition equivalent:

Space Marine Captain
-Plasma Pistol
-Power Weapon
-Frag Grenades
-Krak Grenades
110 pts

5 Terminators (4 LC, 1 TH)
-Land Raider Transport
541 pts

10 Tactical Marines
-Missile Launcher
-Flamer
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Veteran Sargeant
-Rhino
439 pts

10 Tactical Marines
-Melta Gun
-Multi-Melta
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Veteran Sargeant
-Rhino
458 pts

10 Assault Marines
-Meltabombs
400 pts

Whirlwind
150 pts

Total: 2,098 pts

I've left out the Artificer armour (doesn't exist), Iron Halo/Conversion Field and the vehicle upgrades to save myself the trouble of looking through the wargear and vehicle upgrade cards.

AlexHolker wrote:For comparison, here's the 2nd edition equivalent:

Space Marine Captain
-Plasma Pistol
-Power Weapon
-Frag Grenades
-Krak Grenades
110 pts

5 Terminators (4 LC, 1 TH)
-Land Raider Transport
541 pts

10 Tactical Marines
-Missile Launcher
-Flamer
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Veteran Sargeant
-Rhino
439 pts

10 Tactical Marines
-Melta Gun
-Multi-Melta
-Frag and Krak Grenades
-Veteran Sargeant
-Rhino
458 pts

10 Assault Marines
-Meltabombs
400 pts

Whirlwind
150 pts

Total: 2,098 pts

I've left out the Artificer armour (doesn't exist), Iron Halo/Conversion Field and the vehicle upgrades to save myself the trouble of looking through the wargear and vehicle upgrade cards.

I think the Terminator squad is a bit dodgy. Couldn't the sergeant only be equipped with Stormbolter and Power Sword? I'll have to dig out my Codex: Ultramarines. One thing not included that'd you'd definitely need would be a Psyker of a sort (with Inquisition powers, of course!), plus a smattering of wargear in there. In 2nd, I remember that having more than one MBT and one APC on the field was very unusual, even for Imperial Guard.

Eilif wrote:There's been much made of the various price rises, but here's another interesting change that is mentioned, but rarely enumerated.
Points depreciation.

As the various editions have come, the number of points that a given model represents on the tabletop has decreased. Here's two blog posts covering 3 different armies and the depreciation in points from 1998 til today.

http://thearmycollector.blogspot.com/2011/09/ive-got-your-point-devaluation-right.html
http://thearmycollector.blogspot.com/2011/09/depreciating-value-round-two.html

The author compares army lists from GW's 1998 book "Collecting and Painting Wargames Armies" to the points values of armies today. Obviously some orgs and units don't quite line up, but for Space Marines, Dwarves, and Eldar he got points depreciations of 37, 17, and 47 percent respectively!

That's a rather large amount, and paired with rising prices and the prevailing view that 1500 points is now the standard army size and it's easy to see how getting into the hobby is a bigger undertaking and a more expensive one. Phrased differently, it could be said that a given figure now costs more, is worth less, and you need more of them.

Althought the point cost was usually higher in 2nd ed the model count wasnt neccacery any different that it is now for an average sized game, i would say having lower point cost for models is more of an ongoing design trend to simplify the game than trying to get people to buy more models.

zedmeister wrote:I think the Terminator squad is a bit dodgy. Couldn't the sergeant only be equipped with Stormbolter and Power Sword? I'll have to dig out my Codex: Ultramarines.

No. Only the Sergeant could replace his power fist with a power sword, but he didn't have to.

One thing not included that'd you'd definitely need would be a Psyker of a sort (with Inquisition powers, of course!), plus a smattering of wargear in there. In 2nd, I remember that having more than one MBT and one APC on the field was very unusual, even for Imperial Guard.

I think that's beyond the scope of the discussion. The thread is about points depreciation, after all, not changes to the metagame.

Surely Meta is closely associated to the points values?

RT/2nd points values for Armoured vehicles were prohibitively expensive (also tougher with more complicated rules) to the extent that games had unrealistically low numbers of vehicles in them (also not good for vehicle model sales ).

An example of this was the Imperial Guard Armoured Fist Squad in the first IG Codex. This would be virtually the only transport option available. The idea of a Mechanised infantry force was unheard of outsides of games involving many thousands of points.

You could buy all of these cool new models but on field one or two in the average game.

PV for vehicles have therefore been reduced over time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should also add that the reason for vehicles being so expensive when 40k begun was that it was all based upon a characteristic based vehicle creation system that was included in RT.

This was way out of kilter with the infantry and weapon costs.

Well... the metagame is a bigger factor in points depreciation than you might think.

here's why: in 2nd edition, a TAC list would include 3-5 characters and maybe 1-3 vehicles. In 5th edition, that ratio is inverted. So, armies have fewer high points value character models, but more low points value transports.

notprop wrote:Surely Meta is closely associated to the points values?

RT/2nd points values for Armoured vehicles were prohibitively expensive (also tougher with more complicated rules) to the extent that games had unrealistically low numbers of vehicles in them (also not good for vehicle model sales ).

Prohibitive perhaps, and not good for model sales, but but not at all "unrealistic". What's unrealistic is the amount of vehicles that 40k squezes onto a 4x6 table. It's way overboard for 28mm scale.

Considering scale and table size, 2nd edition battles were more "realistic" than 5th edition if such a term can be allowed anywhere within 50 yards of 40k.

What's hugely noticeable is the change in elite/fast unit costs, especially in SM armies.

Anyone remember 32pt Assault Marines in 3E? 48pt Terminators with no invuls? Space marine Veterans whose only bonus was 1pt higher Ld and otherwise had identical options/rules/wargear to tac squads but cost an extra 30-40pts per unit.

Mr Mystery wrote:Anyone care to take into account relative price reduction of increased plastics from '98 to today?

Nope. Thought not....

If by price reduction you mean steadily increasing in price/model until they are almost at par with the cost of the metals they were supposed to be cheaper than. That's why Sternguard Veterans cost the same as the SM command squad right?

Eilif wrote:

notprop wrote:Surely Meta is closely associated to the points values?

RT/2nd points values for Armoured vehicles were prohibitively expensive (also tougher with more complicated rules) to the extent that games had unrealistically low numbers of vehicles in them (also not good for vehicle model sales ).

Prohibitive perhaps, and not good for model sales, but but not at all "unrealistic". What's unrealistic is the amount of vehicles that 40k squezes onto a 4x6 table. It's way overboard for 28mm scale.

I would suggest that if you only have 6x4 you shouldn't be playing more than 1500 point, if that. You really need to cut your cloth to the space you have, the 2000, 2500 and 3000 point games I read about are massively over sized for the game space that most have available, but this is not the fault of the game or indeed GW.

Eilif wrote:Considering scale and table size, 2nd edition battles were more "realistic" than 5th edition if such a term can be allowed anywhere within 50 yards of 40k.

True that, but one/two vehicles per force was quite limiting and had to change.