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.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Returning maximum shareholder value is mandated by law by s. 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 in the U.K. (and by other companies/corporations acts in other jurisdictions), so GW are literally under orders to extract everything they possibly can from us.

No, they are required to maximize shareholder value, a requirement that includes things like considering future value of the product lines. A cash grab product that has the potential to damage long-term sales by driving away customers is not required by law.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Returning maximum shareholder value is mandated by law by s. 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 in the U.K. (and by other companies/corporations acts in other jurisdictions), so GW are literally under orders to extract everything they possibly can from us.

No, they are required to maximize shareholder value, a requirement that includes things like considering future value of the product lines. A cash grab product that has the potential to damage long-term sales by driving away customers is not required by law.

Probably why I didn't say it was.

s. 172(1) in fact explicitly prohibits such decisions. So what's your point? That you didn't bother reading the source provided but wanted to comment on it anyway?

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Returning maximum shareholder value is mandated by law by s. 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 in the U.K. (and by other companies/corporations acts in other jurisdictions), so GW are literally under orders to extract everything they possibly can from us.

No, they are required to maximize shareholder value, a requirement that includes things like considering future value of the product lines. A cash grab product that has the potential to damage long-term sales by driving away customers is not required by law.

Probably why I didn't say it was.

s. 172(1) in fact explicitly prohibits such decisions. So what's your point? That you didn't bother reading the source provided but wanted to comment on it anyway?

Well I went to read it and now I feel like I'm the only one who actually read it.

I don't think CA was about altering the competitive tournament meta.

It was about improving garagehammer or casual pickup games in your FLGS. There are a few exceptions - but I think the majority of units did not transition from "rubbish" to "tournament tier quality". They did however move away from sufficiently far from rubbish that they are not a crushing liability.

Is there a marketing element to this? Sure. If before units were "too bad" to be worth buying you now might consider them because they are better.

More importantly however you have the next level of ignorance. Countless people - who don't post on forums, who are not following the tournament meta, who have no idea about loyal 32s or see knights on every other table etc, buy a unit "because it looks cool". Then they put it on a table, and its awful. (This is basically Karol's Grey Knights complaint for the last... however many months.) That player gets disheartened and drops out of the hobby.

GW have a motive to try and stop that and while you can say its not enough on certain lists most have moved in the right direction.

Again, people have been forceasting - quite unsuccessfully - that GW will crumble any second now because of those types of decisions for at least fifteen years.

In fact, GW's stock price has steadily risen until recently and you can't blame GW for the electorate's idiocy.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, people have been forceasting - quite unsuccessfully - that GW will crumble any second now because of those types of decisions for at least fifteen years.

In fact, GW's stock price has steadily risen until recently and you can't blame GW for the electorate's idiocy.

Too true. You can, however, do what I’m doing and vote with your feet by not purchasing a book that you feel doesn’t suit your needs.

My money was spent on the Vigilus book and all the lovely new Ork vehicles this year, because that’s the best message I can give GW.

No part of my point is that we should be grateful that GW in their munificence has seen fit to grace us with products, for avoidance of doubt.

Absolutely vote with your wallet. That might achieve something. Complaining on the internet almost certainly won't.

Nastavious wrote:

I also find it highly implausible that it takes 8 months to make CA. Is there only 2 people at GW working on this?

Apparently there are six dedicated rules people at GW, so not as low as two, but still not very many. Doubling their team would probably solve a lot of issues and oversights, and it's not like they couldn't afford to do it.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Complaining on the internet almost certainly won't.

Do not casually dismiss how many people one voice of dissent can reach.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
No part of my point is that we should be grateful that GW in their munificence has seen fit to grace us with products, for avoidance of doubt.

Absolutely vote with your wallet. That might achieve something. Complaining on the internet almost certainly won't.

Helps with my mental health and enjoyment of the hobby though. I can't enjoy a hobby if I'm not complaining about it at least twice a day!

So.... as I was aying. Where in the hell is that army builder for 40k they promised us like a year ago!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Complaining on the internet almost certainly won't.

Do not casually dismiss how many people one voice of dissent can reach.

As some who has seen parts of how gw make things here and there I know for a fact they do read the forums. Marketing doesn’t howerver so that might be a problem.

To the original post, I do think that Chapter Approved is a marketing ploy, but the lack of substance is due to GW forgetting why it was a marketing ploy to begin with. It’s a like a car dealership having a end of year sale, but not stocking the advertised vehicles. Less conspiracy, more simple incompetence on the part of GW. I don’t think they realized that the bump at the release of 8th was due to the perception that the gameplay had gotten better, and until they realize that a good game with good rules is one that will draw new players in and make more money than milking the same aging player base they will continue to make crappy decisions.
And yeah, I think they are woefully unaware of the sales “freeze effect” being tied to upcoming rules updates.

 lolman1c wrote:

This is no excuse! They should have delayed CA until they had a clear idea of how everything interacts. Right now it feels like they're trying to patch a game version that came out 7 or 10 updates ago while the current updates are bringing lots of bugs with them.

Did you not see the thread on GW missing the date for the first big FAQ?

The impact of a new codex takes 6 months before it *should* be assessed. Made worse in that assessing anything during this year's release schedule a bit of a fool's errand.

Then you make it MORE complex in that Castellan's are not currently sweeping tournaments.

I'd concede the point if they didn't release 15 or so codexes plus supplements.

Nobody here said they were... we were hoping that the codex would take into account CA as they were probably wrote at the same time but obviously they didn't has PK and now more expensive than PF and so are several more weapons of the same profile. We know GW wants them to be the same price as they have changed them to be the same twice now.

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

So just so we have it clear -

Not changing points = promoting sales
Lowering points = promoting sales, except for GK, of course
Raising points = promoting sales for everything else

 Luciferian wrote:

Nastavious wrote:

I also find it highly implausible that it takes 8 months to make CA. Is there only 2 people at GW working on this?

Apparently there are six dedicated rules people at GW, so not as low as two, but still not very many.

Fascinating. Source?

Ghorgul wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
For clarity, nothing I say should be interpreted as giving GW a free pass. They do make unjustifiable mistakes and they are sometimes incompetent.

I just don't think either applies here.

Yes, I completely agree with you. Keeping Castellan unbalanced (or altenatively keeping the other options unbalanced, whichever way one wants to see the situation) relative to many other options makes financial sense and as we are talking about publicly traded company doing business in highly competed open markets is sound choice financially.

If, as I've seen stated, GW were working on CA18 before the Imperial Knights book was released, how exactly do you expect them to have the data to determine there may be an issue with the Castellan?

Its GW's guilty conscience.
I think that the truth lies in between, marketing move and balance move.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

The price of a weapon is separate from the price of a unit. Nobz pay for their extra strength and attacks in their profile. They also have a much worse save and slower movement.

A PK is functionally identical to a PF, therefore they should have the exact same points cost. The MODEL that uses the weapon should be pointed different to account for its different stats. Lolman has this absolutely right and this is something GW have themselves stated.

The changes to the PK and PF have been in sync for an number of armies actually and so far GW has moved the price of the PK to be in line with the PF.

It’s a complete misstep by GW that has made our codex somewhat outdated after its release.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

The price of a weapon is separate from the price of a unit. Nobz pay for their extra strength and attacks in their profile. They also have a much worse save and slower movement.

A PK is functionally identical to a PF, therefore they should have the exact same points cost. The MODEL that uses the weapon should be pointed different to account for its different stats. Lolman has this absolutely right and this is something GW have themselves stated.

The changes to the PK and PF have been in sync for an number of armies actually and so far GW has moved the price of the PK to be in line with the PF.

It’s a complete misstep by GW that has made our codex somewhat outdated after its release.

This has been proven false multiple times. You cannot price the stats fully on the model or the stats of the weapon fully on the weapon.
PK having an higher cost than a PF has a logic behind it, get over it.

 slave.entity wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Nastavious wrote:

I also find it highly implausible that it takes 8 months to make CA. Is there only 2 people at GW working on this?

Apparently there are six dedicated rules people at GW, so not as low as two, but still not very many.

Fascinating. Source?

This is pretty much common knowledge. I have frequently attended Warhammer world open days where you get an opportunity to speak to the staff and members of the rules team are always on hand and yes there are only 6 of them. These 6 guys are responsible for ALL the rules for AoS, 40k, warhammer underworlds(shadespire) and all the boxed games like tTitanicus etc. There just isn't enough of them!

Off the top of my head,
Robin Cruddace
Phil Kelly
Simon Grant
Jervis Johnson
and I can't recall the other 2. I have spoken to all of these guys in the past. They exclusively as a team write the 40k rules and then take feedback from (paid) playtesters and tournament feedback to tweak them. If any of you are interested in the background working of GW listening to the honest wargamer podcast frequently gives you this insight. The show host is Rob Symes who is an ex GW employee and was the one that started the warhammer live stream. Its a great show because while they don't pull any punches when discussing GW inner workings they are also fans.

No one can say whether CA is definitively one way or the other because the rules team won't reveal that info but its certainly not a conspiracy theory to suggest that these are manipulated by sales targets. The honest wargamer says this all the time.

I think CA is driven by the rules team wanting to make the game more balanced while fighting the imperative from above their heads to sell more of xyz models. But now my conspiracy theory hat on says that I think its one of several steps to change the game to the way they want it. I think from now onwards we will see sweeping changes in faq's and CA and campaign books. Theyve spent the first 18 months getting the framework (codices) in place now they will start tweaking it.

To those angry at GK being slowly more and more unplayable as a mono (including myself) if you looke at the precednet set for AoS and how theyve phased out whole armies before. I woulod recommend not buying another GK model. They will continue to get base service in rules but I can't see them ever becoming a future contender for even middle tier 40k.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

This is no excuse! They should have delayed CA until they had a clear idea of how everything interacts. Right now it feels like they're trying to patch a game version that came out 7 or 10 updates ago while the current updates are bringing lots of bugs with them.

Buuuulllshiii

Did you not see the thread on GW missing the date for the first big FAQ?

The impact of a new codex takes 6 months before it *should* be assessed. Made worse in that assessing anything during this year's release schedule a bit of a fool's errand.

Then you make it MORE complex in that Castellan's are not currently sweeping tournaments.

I'd concede the point if they didn't release 15 or so codexes plus supplements.

Nobody here said they were... we were hoping that the codex would take into account CA as they were probably wrote at the same time but obviously they didn't has PK and now more expensive than PF and so are several more weapons of the same profile. We know GW wants them to be the same price as they have changed them to be the same twice now.

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

So just so we have it clear -

Not changing points = promoting sales
Lowering points = promoting sales, except for GK, of course
Raising points = promoting sales for everything else

Point A. No way is this BS. They are outright behind on their updates and doing a big change like this at Christmas does more to hurt sales and the game itself than actually help it. They are incompetent and I'll stick to my orginal point: trying to fix and balance a gamr with a 8 month lagnis like trying to patch a game without taking into account 8 months worth of updates. As a coder this would outright break your game as scripts conflict with scripts and we are seeing this with GW, not only in 8th edition as they don't take into account recent stuff, but also with their past editions. If I had my way we would have all used the index for over a year and they would have actually worked on the Codexes together to balance them all with each other while taking into account the suggestions of the public. Right now the game is so unstable... as a casual player I stop playing for a month and I comeback and the game just seems to have changed with changes that should have been there from the start. I just don't see how we get angry at games like Fallout 76 when 40k is just as buggy and charges us for patches!

Point 2. This is exsactly what people said when the index came out and PK were more expensive. It was soon seen to be unbalanced and so GW made them the same price in CA 2017. Now they're off again.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

The price of a weapon is separate from the price of a unit. Nobz pay for their extra strength and attacks in their profile. They also have a much worse save and slower movement.

A PK is functionally identical to a PF, therefore they should have the exact same points cost. The MODEL that uses the weapon should be pointed different to account for its different stats. Lolman has this absolutely right and this is something GW have themselves stated.

The changes to the PK and PF have been in sync for an number of armies actually and so far GW has moved the price of the PK to be in line with the PF.

It’s a complete misstep by GW that has made our codex somewhat outdated after its release.

This has been proven false multiple times. You cannot price the stats fully on the model or the stats of the weapon fully on the weapon.
PK having an higher cost than a PF has a logic behind it, get over it.

Apart from you're wrong and the game designers them selves said that you're wrong and have evidence that you're wrong. So you get over the fact that you're wrong. In fact, even in this case guards PFs being cheaper is wrong and I can see flaws. Under your system it's okay that the guard at 4pts model can have S8 attacks (catachan trait) while a marine has exsactly the same but pays more? The whole point them being the same price is that the base models are widely different while the weapon should be the same. And it's not just PKs... heavy flamers, heavy bolters, twinlinked weapons, all cheaper in comparison to orks now.

 Elbows wrote:
I'm not sure why these discussions always have an air of "conspiracy" about them, as if basic business principles are difficult to comprehend. There's nothing secretive about it.

1) GW has no vested interest in a perfectly balanced, and nuanced game. They need a game to be balanced "enough" to continue selling models - which is priority numero uno. While I don't doubt GW employees enthusiasm for the product, GW is smart enough as a business to realize that additional resources, time and investment in perfecting the game is wasted money and effort. The game needs to be "good enough", this is a point at which almost all successful companies eventually arrive at.

2) To this point...in order to sell models, likewise some models need rules balanced up or down to ensure these models keep selling. GW has access to their own sales numbers and are capable of looking at spreadsheets and saying "Damn, no one has purchased X in four months...". So again, this will mean they will consider balancing these models just enough to make them more appealing sales-wise. The bonus is that it may also slightly balance the game....but game balance is not the driving factor behind this.

In other words, GW wants both. They bump units to sell them, and by doing so also gain some favor with players and consumers. It's a double-win for them. They're not doing it for the "good of the game" they're doing it to stay in the business of selling models. Nobody should fault them for that, or complain or chide them for it. It's their job.

Point 1 pretty much nails it so far as I can see. GW want the game to be playable and enjoyable in a wide variety of gaming environments but are not in the business of putting all of their focus onto just one - competitive play.

From a certain viewpoint they are nearly there already. If you look at the stats over a lot of games at https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report most factions are in the range that you should reasonably expect to win 2-3 games out of a 5 game weekend tournament with most factions. There are a couple of outliers that have issues (e.g. GK, Ynnari) but mostly the rest of it comes down to the usual mixes of luck and skill. Despite the opinions we see on threads such as this I would imagine the GW management and design teams would be intensely relaxed if all the factions fell into that 2-3 win average range and consider it mostly job done a the faction level. The fact that this set of points changes were more about internal balance issues than cross-faction balance issues indicates to me that the designers are picking up on this feedback and are aiming for "good enough" balance.

We have had ex-insiders tell us that there is no real flow of information from sales to the rules designers, in which case any idea that they see and respond to a decline in sales would be mistaken. They may however be receiving feedback from the playtest team - most of whom run tournaments - regarding units rarely seen in the tournament environment and which therefore are candidates for looking at rebalancing upwards.

GW should, of course, move to digital point casting as to make sure that points can be updated more frequently.

Regarding CA I think the problem with CA is more that they've been doing catch up with the codexes that CA hasn't been useful for anything except changing point values that are often changed months in advance of actual release.

However, we are now entering a period where all the codexes are about to be done and they can start to release campaign books and standalone models and it is there where I think the CA could potentially shine: as a collected codex of all single-model releases over the year or years. So that when you want to field several models that are each in their own campaign book they could simply release Chapter Approved collecting all those releases into an easily referenced source.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

The price of a weapon is separate from the price of a unit. Nobz pay for their extra strength and attacks in their profile. They also have a much worse save and slower movement.

A PK is functionally identical to a PF, therefore they should have the exact same points cost. The MODEL that uses the weapon should be pointed different to account for its different stats. Lolman has this absolutely right and this is something GW have themselves stated.

The changes to the PK and PF have been in sync for an number of armies actually and so far GW has moved the price of the PK to be in line with the PF.

It’s a complete misstep by GW that has made our codex somewhat outdated after its release.

"A Boss Nob can take the place of one Ork Boy"

Ork Boyz - S4, 7 points
Boss Nob - S5, W2, 3 attacks, 6+ armor, 7 points

I don't see that boss nob paying for any of that.

Marine - S4, 13 points
Sargent - S4, 2A, 13 points

================================

Nobz - S5, W2, 3A, 4+ armor, 14 points
Terminator - S4, W2, 2A, 2+ armor, 23 or 26 points

You see how a terminator costs more than a marine? It's paying for a wound and armor, because the *actual cost of a model with T4 W2 4+ is NOT 7 points*. Do you see where terminators pay a different cost for power fists than marines?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:


Point A. No way is this BS. They are outright behind on their updates and doing a big change like this at Christmas does more to hurt sales and the game itself than actually help it. They are incompetent and I'll stick to my orginal point: trying to fix and balance a gamr with a 8 month lagnis like trying to patch a game without taking into account 8 months worth of updates. As a coder this would outright break your game as scripts conflict with scripts and we are seeing this with GW, not only in 8th edition as they don't take into account recent stuff, but also with their past editions. If I had my way we would have all used the index for over a year and they would have actually worked on the Codexes together to balance them all with each other while taking into account the suggestions of the public. Right now the game is so unstable... as a casual player I stop playing for a month and I comeback and the game just seems to have changed with changes that should have been there from the start. I just don't see how we get angry at games like Fallout 76 when 40k is just as buggy and charges us for patches!

So, if a big change like CA does more to hurt sales for Christmas, and it comes it really close to Christmas - even *after* the boxes mean to be available in time *for* Christmas, but it's still a marketing ploy?

You've also made the mistake of separating CA from the FAQs. They *did* attempt to address the Loyal 32 with the CP changes. Changes must be kept in context of everything changed.

You also can't make broad changes and see saw balance constantly - that's a horrible approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A couple other items.

1) Its patently absurd to bring up catachan power fists. They do not have whole squads with fists and are not even part of the points scope.

Do you pay extra for klaws on goffs or skarboyz?

2) CA has more content for stuff outside matches play than in. Its total hubris to think if they don't adjust points that the money machine grinds to a halt.

Have you ever been to a Golden Daemon competition? Those models never see the table. Have you ever seen the meme about piles of unbuilt models while still buying more and said, yea that's me?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So just so we have it clear -

Not changing points = promoting sales
Lowering points = promoting sales, except for GK, of course
Raising points = promoting sales for everything else

Add "I bought an army composed of only the best stuff, and the fact GW has has changed it is clearly a trick to make me buy other units rather than attempt to balance the game".

Wish they had gutted the Castellan though. Something about the guy in the OP's video squealing about how "it wouldn't be fair" really irked me.

 lolman1c wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

The price of a weapon is separate from the price of a unit. Nobz pay for their extra strength and attacks in their profile. They also have a much worse save and slower movement.

A PK is functionally identical to a PF, therefore they should have the exact same points cost. The MODEL that uses the weapon should be pointed different to account for its different stats. Lolman has this absolutely right and this is something GW have themselves stated.

The changes to the PK and PF have been in sync for an number of armies actually and so far GW has moved the price of the PK to be in line with the PF.

It’s a complete misstep by GW that has made our codex somewhat outdated after its release.

This has been proven false multiple times. You cannot price the stats fully on the model or the stats of the weapon fully on the weapon.
PK having an higher cost than a PF has a logic behind it, get over it.

Apart from you're wrong and the game designers them selves said that you're wrong and have evidence that you're wrong. So you get over the fact that you're wrong. In fact, even in this case guards PFs being cheaper is wrong and I can see flaws. Under your system it's okay that the guard at 4pts model can have S8 attacks (catachan trait) while a marine has exsactly the same but pays more? The whole point them being the same price is that the base models are widely different while the weapon should be the same. And it's not just PKs... heavy flamers, heavy bolters, twinlinked weapons, all cheaper in comparison to orks now.

Considering that the said guardmen still is 33% less effective with it than a marine even with the catachan trait? Yeah, quite fair.

If you have evidence that the cost of a weapon is not tied to the model stats, please provide it, until then you are just getting angry on nonsense.

CA, FAQ’s and fecebook were supposed to revolutionize wazhammer.

I would think that the impact of CA on christmas sales is probably lower than we would think. The vast majority of sales are not generated from meta chasing players. Those meta chasers and the slightly more casual but still competitive players would still buy the models that CA buffs before or after christmas.

After all CA itself is a product we have to pay for. My local FLGS is now saying their tournament in Jan will be using CA eternal war missions so its generating its own christmas sales bump. I bought it despite saying I wouldn't because the missions are so good for the game.

 Nithaniel wrote:
I would think that the impact of CA on christmas sales is probably lower than we would think. The vast majority of sales are not generated from meta chasing players. Those meta chasers and the slightly more casual but still competitive players would still buy the models that CA buffs before or after christmas.

After all CA itself is a product we have to pay for. My local FLGS is now saying their tournament in Jan will be using CA eternal war missions so its generating its own christmas sales bump. I bought it despite saying I wouldn't because the missions are so good for the game.

I have spoken to a lot of seller who say it has huge impact on their sales and they're campaigning to get it changed. Last month one shop sold about $500 worth of 40k which is nothing compared to usual as people held off for CA.

Everyone i know to which i speak to has been helding back purchases while waiting for CA.

Moving it to November would probably be a good move, but i guess that there is some present condition that inhibits something like that or they would do it, they surely like our money.

[/spoiler]

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

The price of a weapon is separate from the price of a unit. Nobz pay for their extra strength and attacks in their profile. They also have a much worse save and slower movement.

A PK is functionally identical to a PF, therefore they should have the exact same points cost. The MODEL that uses the weapon should be pointed different to account for its different stats. Lolman has this absolutely right and this is something GW have themselves stated.

The changes to the PK and PF have been in sync for an number of armies actually and so far GW has moved the price of the PK to be in line with the PF.

It’s a complete misstep by GW that has made our codex somewhat outdated after its release.

"A Boss Nob can take the place of one Ork Boy"

Ork Boyz - S4, 7 points
Boss Nob - S5, W2, 3 attacks, 6+ armor, 7 points

I don't see that boss nob paying for any of that.

Marine - S4, 13 points
Sargent - S4, 2A, 13 points

================================

Nobz - S5, W2, 3A, 4+ armor, 14 points
Terminator - S4, W2, 2A, 2+ armor, 23 or 26 points

You see how a terminator costs more than a marine? It's paying for a wound and armor, because the *actual cost of a model with T4 W2 4+ is NOT 7 points*. Do you see where terminators pay a different cost for power fists than marines?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:


Point A. No way is this BS. They are outright behind on their updates and doing a big change like this at Christmas does more to hurt sales and the game itself than actually help it. They are incompetent and I'll stick to my orginal point: trying to fix and balance a gamr with a 8 month lagnis like trying to patch a game without taking into account 8 months worth of updates. As a coder this would outright break your game as scripts conflict with scripts and we are seeing this with GW, not only in 8th edition as they don't take into account recent stuff, but also with their past editions. If I had my way we would have all used the index for over a year and they would have actually worked on the Codexes together to balance them all with each other while taking into account the suggestions of the public. Right now the game is so unstable... as a casual player I stop playing for a month and I comeback and the game just seems to have changed with changes that should have been there from the start. I just don't see how we get angry at games like Fallout 76 when 40k is just as buggy and charges us for patches!

So, if a big change like CA does more to hurt sales for Christmas, and it comes it really close to Christmas - even *after* the boxes mean to be available in time *for* Christmas, but it's still a marketing ploy?

You've also made the mistake of separating CA from the FAQs. They *did* attempt to address the Loyal 32 with the CP changes. Changes must be kept in context of everything changed.

You also can't make broad changes and see saw balance constantly - that's a horrible approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A couple other items.

1) Its patently absurd to bring up catachan power fists. They do not have whole squads with fists and are not even part of the points scope.

Do you pay extra for klaws on goffs or skarboyz?

2) CA has more content for stuff outside matches play than in. Its total hubris to think if they don't adjust points that the money machine grinds to a halt.

Have you ever been to a Golden Daemon competition? Those models never see the table. Have you ever seen the meme about piles of unbuilt models while still buying more and said, yea that's me?

[spoiler]

You talked about guard only having 1 powerfist but then went on to talk about boyz get a single nobz with a PF... -_- We do have units that can have entire squads with power fists, they're called Nobz and Mega Nobz and we pay the points for the strength in return for losing the armour save, invulns, speed and DS abilities.

As for sales, it hurts everyone but GW. GW themselves only sent like 2 boxes of those big boxes to none GW stores and it seems (from what I have heard) they limited stock availability so when CA came out everyone was forced to go to them.

Spoletta wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Oh my god enough with the PK bs. It's higher strength and more base attacks on average. Get over it. We don't know they want them the same price, because they changes were completely out of sync.

The price of a weapon is separate from the price of a unit. Nobz pay for their extra strength and attacks in their profile. They also have a much worse save and slower movement.

A PK is functionally identical to a PF, therefore they should have the exact same points cost. The MODEL that uses the weapon should be pointed different to account for its different stats. Lolman has this absolutely right and this is something GW have themselves stated.

The changes to the PK and PF have been in sync for an number of armies actually and so far GW has moved the price of the PK to be in line with the PF.

It’s a complete misstep by GW that has made our codex somewhat outdated after its release.

This has been proven false multiple times. You cannot price the stats fully on the model or the stats of the weapon fully on the weapon.
PK having an higher cost than a PF has a logic behind it, get over it.

Please provide this ‘proof’. I’d be interested to see it. Please also explain the logic as to why two identical weapons should be priced differently.

Please also explain why GW have themselves stated that equipment is priced separately from a unit by design?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
"A Boss Nob can take the place of one Ork Boy"

Ork Boyz - S4, 7 points
Boss Nob - S5, W2, 3 attacks, 6+ armor, 7 points

I don't see that boss nob paying for any of that.

Marine - S4, 13 points
Sargent - S4, 2A, 13 points

================================

Nobz - S5, W2, 3A, 4+ armor, 14 points
Terminator - S4, W2, 2A, 2+ armor, 23 or 26 points

You see how a terminator costs more than a marine? It's paying for a wound and armor, because the *actual cost of a model with T4 W2 4+ is NOT 7 points*. Do you see where terminators pay a different cost for power fists than marines?

Huh that’s odd. I don’t see Sergeants paying for any of their extra stats. In any army. *Almost as if the cost of the sergeant model was already priced into the cost of the unit itself.*

I also find it strange that you believe you know more about how GW price models and their equipment than GW themselves. GW have stated that the price for models in a unit and their equipment is separate by design. They have also shown that identical equipment is priced identically. As you’ve said a PF costs the same regardless of the model that has equipped it. As a PK is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to a PF, their price should be too, according to GWs own, stated design philosophy.

The PK will become the same price as PF at one point or another, when GW get their act together. As it was when the previous CA was released.