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.

So now that we've seen all the points changes and some of them are TRULY baffling, what is in the FAQ that isn't going to result in basically just as big of a Chapter Approved in December?

Now, I only really have complete knowledge of SoB so I can't speak for other armies atm, but as far as actual bodies go, most of the prices seem fine. Seraphim when up too much and the Immolator went up when it should have gone down, but the rest was right around what I was thinking it would be.

Weapons on the other hand...yeesh. Condemnor Boltguns and handflamers both went up FIVE TIMES their original price when no one was taking them before, combi-flamer went up 2 points despite being the worst combi-weapon BEFORE both melta and plasma came down. Heavy bolters on vehicles seeing a 5 point bump when being able to move and shoot with them finally made them worth TEN on a lot of vehicles. No one was out there voluntarily putting extra heavy bolters on stuff(except IF). Compare that price the the onslaught gatling cannon and it looks even worse. Multimeltas up to 25 on vehicles when they were way too expensive at 22 is nuts, even with no -1 to movement now. If the lascannon stayed at the leaked price of 20(haven't checked yet) then the Multimelta being 25 is a straight up middle finger as Lascannons are by FAR the better weapon.

Twin MM and Twin HB went up to 50 and 30 respectively, which should kind of make sense because that's just the cost of 2 vehicle mounted MMs or HBs. Except it doesn't because a twin MM isn't as good as 2 MMs because it can't split fire AND those were both overpriced (Except for HBs in IF) BEFORE they ate significant nerfs.

Is it just me or do a lot of these changes, at least on the weapon side, have feth all to do with balance and a lot more to do with creating nice round numbers; regardless of the fact that doing so totally destroys a large number of options?

Honestly, I don't think it does. I think GW really, honestly just decided "screw it" when it came to weapons options being balanced against one another.

It's pretty clear too that they did some kind of algorithmic math pass on everything, and then in every instance where someone actually cared about a light infantry unit - say, lessser daemons, guardsmen, ork boyz - someone brought up that they don't do gak and GW dropped them back down to within a couple percent of their current value.

And then units people didn't care about, like Servitors, Grots, Wyches, Wracks etc got nerfed into the stratosphere. Like, over here we have a Harlequin, at 14ppm, and over here we have a wych....12ppm. Uh, what? Sorry? This thing that does 2x as much damage, advances and charges, has an always-on 4++, and can buy melta pistols for 5pts on every model? That one is 2ppm more?

I love threads where people reference something "everyone" has seen then don't link to it. Because "everyone" has seen it, right?

 Grimtuff wrote:
I love threads where people reference something "everyone" has seen then don't link to it. Because "everyone" has seen it, right?

Want me to chew your food for you too?

ERJAK wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I love threads where people reference something "everyone" has seen then don't link to it. Because "everyone" has seen it, right?

Want me to chew your food for you too?

Grimtuff made a fair point, though. I can see the thread about Chaos and Xenos points changes, but I've not seen anything about the Imperial point changes. And unless GW have significantly changed their policies, the points haven't been confirmed through an official source, which makes it significantly harder to identify at a glance what's accurate and what's a random, sourceless "rumour" posted by people looking for attention.

Is it such a burden to actually provide a link to the points you're discussing, so we can see them all in context?

 Grimtuff wrote:
I love threads where people reference something "everyone" has seen then don't link to it. Because "everyone" has seen it, right?

Not sure that we are allowed to post explicit point costs, that has always been disallowed in the past. That said, here's an article from Goonhammer that covers every faction https://www.goonhammer.com/the-9th-edition-munitorum-field-manual-points-review/

If you want the entire list in text format, check out the usual suspects for info like that. I guess. Idk. If it's allowed now then that's news to me, I'm all for it.

Aelyn wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I love threads where people reference something "everyone" has seen then don't link to it. Because "everyone" has seen it, right?

Want me to chew your food for you too?

Grimtuff made a fair point, though. I can see the thread about Chaos and Xenos points changes, but I've not seen anything about the Imperial point changes. And unless GW have significantly changed their policies, the points haven't been confirmed through an official source, which makes it significantly harder to identify at a glance what's accurate and what's a random, sourceless "rumour" posted by people looking for attention.

Is it such a burden to actually provide a link to the points you're discussing, so we can see them all in context?

Unfortunately no link. It is all being read off on youtube. The source is trustable. The general sentiment about point changes so far is largely unjustified.

Several videos are up on the StrikingScorpion82 channel.

These changes appear to me to be so that they can give us the points breaks of 8th back but charge us for another CA.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Unfortunately no link. It is all being read off on youtube. The source is trustable. The general sentiment about point changes so far is largely unjustified.

Several videos are up on the StrikingScorpion82 channel.

And with Goonhammer's post going up that corroborates (albeit not with explicit points change lists) most of what is showing up in other places, im inclined to believe it until we find specific errors (which are going to be there, you dont read several thousand lines of text in one go out loud without a slipup or two).

Phenatix wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I love threads where people reference something "everyone" has seen then don't link to it. Because "everyone" has seen it, right?

Not sure that we are allowed to post explicit point costs, that has always been disallowed in the past. That said, here's an article from Goonhammer that covers every faction https://www.goonhammer.com/the-9th-edition-munitorum-field-manual-points-review/

If you want the entire list in text format, check out the usual suspects for info like that. I guess. Idk. If it's allowed now then that's news to me, I'm all for it.

I want to pause to address the Goonhammer article. They call out "Winners and Losers". They used old lists to do this.

This is incredibly stupid. The "Thousand Sons" list has 8 HQs. 3 of which are Slaanesh and 2 are Alpha Legion.

This is very clearly not a workable list in 9th nor it is "Thousand Sons".

kryczek wrote:
These changes appear to me to be so that they can give us the points breaks of 8th back but charge us for another CA.

That's so cynical. But probably correct

Thats been my theory since day 1 - points are up, but will eventually go back down.