Switch Theme:

Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror

With a new edition looming its time to get our finkin' caps on and get our hopes up before they are summarily dashed.

One of my fervent hopes for the future is that they scale up the point values of games to add more granularity in list building. By this I mean I want to see us go from 2000pts for a big game to 3-4 thousand. This way we wont have an arms race for the bottom spot for guardsman and cultists and give more flexibility to troops in the mid tier like sisters and hearthkyn with their point values instead of being defined by a VERY narrow band before they are competing with space marines and losing.

I'd also like to continue the trend of free upgrades outside of a chosen few like with the latest space marines. It makes sense and will generally make list building much easier (if only they would make special weapons more....specialized to be mission specific instead of a clear winner like plasma).

What would you like to see happen to point values?

17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"

-Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.

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




I would be happy if they up the Points on things for more granular balance.
As well as use that with units themselves taking some thought to the battlefield role.
Units that are very similar, shouldn’t be that far off from each other.
And basic weapons shouldn’t be effectively useless.
But I don’t want bigger games, I want them to shrink them a bit, I just don’t like the standard being so huge as a default. Especially as we run out of space on smaller boards.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Apple fox wrote:

But I don’t want bigger games, I want them to shrink them a bit, I just don’t like the standard being so huge as a default. Especially as we run out of space on smaller boards.


1) So you want the company who makes its $ selling minis to encourage its customers to buy less of those minis....
I don't think they're going to do that.

2) just play on larger boards?
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

I hope:
  • They start assigning points to units rather than models
  • They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades
  •    
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





    Upping points values to increase granularity is fine in theory, but it sort of assumes that GW is good enough at assigning points values for the extra granularity to matter. I'm pretty bad at painting harlequin diamonds. Regardless of whether you give me a Walmart brush or a teeny tiny high-end detail brush, my harlequins' "diamond" pattern isn't going to look very geometric in nature.

    A few wishlist items from me:
    * Get rid of some of the "layers" of rules. Juggling purity bonuses, subfaction bonuses, stratagems, unit rules, and psychic powers all at once is a bit draining.
    * Fewer "kill better" rules; more rules to allow and reward maneuvering.
    * I want subfaction/army style rules that make your army play *differently* instead of just making it more killy.
    * Reduce the number of objectives at play in a given mission. A primary and 3 secondaries per player is 7 objectives to keep in mind at once. That's too many for my poor brain to juggle, and too many to build much of a narrative around.
    * Kind of want a to-wound table closer to the old one. The current one is quirky in a bad way.
    * Generally, I'd like the game to encourage play with fewer units at a time. The current 2,000 point games are too big for my taste. Give me something closer to 1,000 or 1,500.
    * Kind of done with stratagems, to be honest. I'd be fine with them going away entirely and/or replacing them with something closer to Sigmar command abilities.
    * I miss the variety of cool wargear options we used to have. Bring back customizable characters.
    * Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.
    * Probably ditch relics. Just give us back cool wargear (with a 0-1 limit as necessary).
    * Support for thematic/narrative-centric games. Crusade was great, but it could be improved.
    * Get rid of the force org chart/detachments (seems like they are?).
    * Some sort of cumulative penalty for taking difficult shots. Doesn't necessarily have to be a stacking modifier to the to-hit roll; could be reduced range if the target is too hard to hit, a penalty to the to-hit roll reflect the difficulty of placing a significant shot, a reduction in the number of shots you get, etc. Just something so that a devastator has a reason to hold still if he's shooting at something wearing camouflage.



    ATTENTION
    . Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut






    Upping points values to increase granularity, while simultaneously removing the majority of weapon costs is some major cognitive dissonance.
       
    Made in gb
    Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




     Lord Damocles wrote:
    Upping points values to increase granularity, while simultaneously removing the majority of weapon costs is some major cognitive dissonance.


    Yes and no, we all saw the issues with the fact the 5-7 point models vary in ability wildly beyond the ability to point them really. Some gears costs could afford to be binned if the incentive to a special weapon guy is having the worst option for free, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I would however say that a 16pt guardsman would make the 1pt bolt pistol worth actually having a value.
       
    Made in us
    Irked Necron Immortal




    Since they are seemingly moving closer to AoS style of game design I would not be surprised if they went with that for points and units as well. Buying units in "blocks" (boxes) as opposed to individual models. Wargear is free but you are limited to what how many you can bring in a unit. Reason I think this is because 1) GW already has imposed Wargear restrictions on units and 2) its an easy was to expand the new Combat Patrol (new player) game into a bigger normal game. The real question would be if they go all in with Reinforcements rule from AoS as well
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    I guess you start off with the idea of "how big should a 40k army be" and determine points from there.

    I don't really mind free points for wargear. It might offer balance issues - but hopefully the game/missions will focus on other things than "well I have a melta gun and you have a grenade launcher so I'm gonna win". Arks of Omen has been remarkably balanced despite fears over free wargear. Aesthetically I like that you can bling out champions without feeling this is a waste. (And yes, clearly not all special weapons were a waste in every edition - but many upgrades have been.)

    GW has already begun pricing certain units on a squad basis rather than a model basis. And for that reason I'm not really sure granularity adds much. Granularity comes into place when you look at something like a Grot and go "this would be OP at 3 points, but sucks at 4" or something similar. But I'm not really clear that applies. Nothing stops GW going "10 Grots=35 points, 20=70" etc. "But I want to take 14" - well sucks to be you I guess.

    Would a world where a Marine was say 40 points, a Sister was 22, and a Guardsman 13 but we play at 4k points make a huge difference? What are really haggling over? You think Sisters should be half a point less? So if you had 50 in a list, you'd save 25 points? I don't think the game is tight enough for that to be the reason of over or under performance.
       
    Made in dk
    Loyal Necron Lychguard






     generalchaos34 wrote:
    With a new edition looming its time to get our finkin' caps on and get our hopes up before they are summarily dashed.

    One of my fervent hopes for the future is that they scale up the point values of games to add more granularity in list building. By this I mean I want to see us go from 2000pts for a big game to 3-4 thousand. This way we wont have an arms race for the bottom spot for guardsman and cultists and give more flexibility to troops in the mid tier like sisters and hearthkyn with their point values instead of being defined by a VERY narrow band before they are competing with space marines and losing.

    I'd also like to continue the trend of free upgrades outside of a chosen few like with the latest space marines. It makes sense and will generally make list building much easier (if only they would make special weapons more....specialized to be mission specific instead of a clear winner like plasma).

    What would you like to see happen to point values?

    Going from 2000 to 2300 by increasing pts by 15% only made things worse in 9th. Just go straight to 40000. 20x and nobody will be able to claim 1 point is too much for anything because it'll be so tiny it's basically irrelevant. Obviously most things will still cost 20 or more pts, but if something needs to cost what would currently be 0,25 pts then that'd be an option.

    Free upgrades are a terrible idea. If a Guardsman with a plasma gun should cost the same as a Guardsman with lasgun then why should he cost something different from a Space Marine or a Carnifex? It makes no sense, if plasma was free then why wouldn't you just equip companies with plasma instead of lasguns? It encourages nonsensical equipment choices like thunder hammers for Devastator units and punishes players that have models from old editions where thunder hammers weren't automatically the best choice. Special weapons should be as specialized as the fluff dictates, only in the absence of fluff should gameplay be taken into consideration.

    Free wargear is first and foremost an internal balance issue, only when one player goes all out while the other does the opposite does the gak smell. For tournament and pick-up games you shouldn't have to negotiate hostages, you should just be able to play and have fun, that means codexes that have internally balanced wargear options and codexes that are externally balanced against each other.
       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    Tyel wrote:
    I guess you start off with the idea of "how big should a 40k army be" and determine points from there.



    Hard for a narrative player, because my current answer would be: "Anywhere from 500-3000 depending on what the story demands."

    It should be noted that while I describe myself as a Narrative Escalation Campaign Player, escalation isn't all in one direction; we frequently use small armies for "side quest" missions even after our rosters have grown. An army might grow from 500-1200 over the course of five or six games, but if you're stationing detachments to hold territory as you go, the retrieval mission for a Relic may only be worth sending 500 points or even less.
       
    Made in us
    Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






    Gathering the Informations.

    Points taking a flying leap off a skyscraper for one thing.
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.
    And stop making wargear free...

    Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
    "GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

     
       
    Made in ca
    Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/24 12:08:36


     
       
    Made in dk
    Loyal Necron Lychguard






     Asmodai wrote:
    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.

    Why does pts have to be ruined? You already have PL.
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






     Asmodai wrote:
    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.


    oh so lets say a lascannon costs 24pts in a tactical squad, it should be free?

    Then you wouldn't mind me bringing 10 tactical squads and getting an extra free 240pts in my list?

    2000 vs 2240 seems fair
       
    Made in ca
    Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Asmodai wrote:
    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.


    oh so lets say a lascannon costs 24pts in a tactical squad, it should be free?

    Then you wouldn't mind me bringing 10 tactical squads and getting an extra free 240pts in my list?

    2000 vs 2240 seems fair


    It's not an extra 240 free points, the heavy weapons option is already built into the base cost of the unit, same as it is now for most Marine units.

    It's like arguing that Europeans don't pay sales tax because the VAT is included on the price on the shelf instead of only being added at the register on checkout.
       
    Made in us
    Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






     Asmodai wrote:


    It's not an extra 240 free points, the heavy weapons option is already built into the base cost of the unit, same as it is now for most Marine units.

    It's like arguing that Europeans don't pay sales tax because the VAT is included on the price on the shelf instead of only being added at the register on checkout.


    so then if i want to bring a squad of boltgun tacticals, i can't.

    or if i chose to bring a flamer instead of a lascannon.

    these guns cannot have the same value and cannot be abstracted out.
       
    Made in fi
    Locked in the Tower of Amareo





     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

    They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.


    So if marines are say 11 how you get IG, tau, necron, ork, grot all fit into 5-10 well? Below 5 pts/model it starts to break game in itself and you would need to have super weird rules(can't hold objectives etc) as disadvantage to not be too bad.

    Give me 2pts/model and I don't particularly care if he has S1 T1 and no gun.

    2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka




    NE Ohio, USA

     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Asmodai wrote:


    It's not an extra 240 free points, the heavy weapons option is already built into the base cost of the unit, same as it is now for most Marine units.

    It's like arguing that Europeans don't pay sales tax because the VAT is included on the price on the shelf instead of only being added at the register on checkout.


    so then if i want to bring a squad of boltgun tacticals, i can't.

    or if i chose to bring a flamer instead of a lascannon.

    these guns cannot have the same value and cannot be abstracted out.


    You can bring those options if that's what youd prefer instead of a lascannon.

    And yes, a boltgun, flamer, & lascannon can (and already do) cost the same pts. And they've always costed the same PL since the dawn of 9e.
    Works fine.
       
    Made in us
    Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






    I like the idea of going back to full unit points and the wargear still be extra. Bake in the cost of the units standard equipment, but still have to pay for heavy weapons, special weapons, upgrades, etc.

    Ditch this points per model nonsense that allows for weird unit sizes. For example a SM Tactical quad should only ever be 5 or 10 models. Pay X points for 5, pay another X points for 5 more.

    Basically how 5th edition did it.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/24 17:41:56


     
       
    Made in us
    Preacher of the Emperor





    Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror

    tneva82 wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

    They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.


    So if marines are say 11 how you get IG, tau, necron, ork, grot all fit into 5-10 well? Below 5 pts/model it starts to break game in itself and you would need to have super weird rules(can't hold objectives etc) as disadvantage to not be too bad.

    Give me 2pts/model and I don't particularly care if he has S1 T1 and no gun.


    Thats where my thoughts lie on it too. Doubling the points on everything would allow a bit more sliding up and down to make your Scions and Necrons and other in between units feel more appropriately costed. Right now they both cost the same but offer a vastly different experience for what you get. maybe it would be better if a Necron Warrior was 20 points and a scion would be 22 just to make costs feel more real for what the unit does.

    As for free wargear. I like it from a list building stand point. Especially when I can be like "man, I wish I had more anti tank in that last game, lets swap those in". BUT I think this only means something when each special weapon has some sort of specialist task. From a guardsman perspective you have your plasma/melta/sniper/flamer/grenade launcher. Right now plasma and melta are pretty much your only decent choice outside of some niche things. What I would like to see would be plasma works best against heavy infantry but not much else, melta is the tank hunting option, sniper adds some real character killing versatility, flamers will greatly boost either anti horde or negate cover in a meaningful way, and grenade launchers will get a mechanic that pins, forces leadership, or ignores LoS. That way your weapon choice reflects what you want to do with the unit, not just "take plasma and call it a day" because its good at everything. Otherwise if they are going to keep the weapons as is we need to have point costs per weapon so you can decided for the good option and pay for it or take the cheap/free option in your grenade or flamer option.

    17,000 points (Valhallan)
    10,000 points
    6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
    Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
    Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
    "Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"

    -Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer 
       
    Made in us
    Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




    I would like 10th to institute a rule that if you pay money on the app, you get to increase your army size. So instead of 2k, you get 2250.

    I just want GW to dive headfirst into pay to win.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    Annandale, VA

    tneva82 wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

    They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.


    So if marines are say 11 how you get IG, tau, necron, ork, grot all fit into 5-10 well? Below 5 pts/model it starts to break game in itself and you would need to have super weird rules(can't hold objectives etc) as disadvantage to not be too bad.

    Give me 2pts/model and I don't particularly care if he has S1 T1 and no gun.


    Start with Marines at 15pts and Grots at 5pts and you have plenty of room for scaling cost.

    Besides, I really, really doubt that having Fire Warriors and Shoota Boyz both at 8pts would make them feel identical, or that bumping one or the other to effectively 8.5pts would be the solution.

       
    Made in us
    Krazed Killa Kan






    Kinda sorta related to point values but I would want them to bring back template weapons and more importantly proper cover saves. Both of these can really disrupt how units play out on the table top because they change the performance of weapons and units from tactical factors. It becomes less about doing the mathhammer to calculate cost effectiveness and more about how players adapt to the battle in progress.

    "Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
    Armies (7th edition points)
    7000+ Points Death Skullz
    4000 Points
    + + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
    3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
    3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
       
    Made in gb
    Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




     Vankraken wrote:
    Kinda sorta related to point values but I would want them to bring back template weapons and more importantly proper cover saves. Both of these can really disrupt how units play out on the table top because they change the performance of weapons and units from tactical factors. It becomes less about doing the mathhammer to calculate cost effectiveness and more about how players adapt to the battle in progress.


    We recently hashed out the template thing and there's a proposed rules thread for it, tl;dr some people love the immersive side and enjoy people being punished for poor model placement, other people hate the game being about forcing precise model placement (max coherency at all times) and movement taking forever as a result. Cover does need work though.
       
    Made in dk
    Loyal Necron Lychguard






     generalchaos34 wrote:
    As for free wargear. I like it from a list building stand point. Especially when I can be like "man, I wish I had more anti tank in that last game, lets swap those in". BUT I think this only means something when each special weapon has some sort of specialist task. From a guardsman perspective you have your plasma/melta/sniper/flamer/grenade launcher. Right now plasma and melta are pretty much your only decent choice outside of some niche things. What I would like to see would be plasma works best against heavy infantry but not much else, melta is the tank hunting option, sniper adds some real character killing versatility, flamers will greatly boost either anti horde or negate cover in a meaningful way, and grenade launchers will get a mechanic that pins, forces leadership, or ignores LoS. That way your weapon choice reflects what you want to do with the unit, not just "take plasma and call it a day" because its good at everything. Otherwise if they are going to keep the weapons as is we need to have point costs per weapon so you can decided for the good option and pay for it or take the cheap/free option in your grenade or flamer option.

    All of this is ignoring the multitudes of people that don't have all that wargear ready because "oops all boltguns" is ok fluff-wise and the most competitive option in some editions and was only super silly in 7th, but then you ran naked Sergeants. It's a slap in the face of old fans of the game. Plasma guns don't grow on trees, you shouldn't just "take plasma and call it a day", if you don't need a special weapon you should "take boltgun and call it a day".

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/24 17:18:48


     
       
    Made in us
    Confessor Of Sins





    Tacoma, WA, USA

    I know it is a bit of dream, but GW can make the special/heavy weapons of near equal value if they take advantage of the way of writing weapons to make that happen.

    Do you want an AM Infantry Squad to equally value Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Meltaguns, and Plasma Guns? This is the big chance by adjusting the attacks, accuracy, and special rule of the four weapons to make them all advantageous in different, common-enough circumstances.

    Do that successfully and you can just fold the cost of the special weapon(s) into the base cost of the squad. You can do similar things with the sergeant weapon choices. Bolt Pistols hit harder while you get more shots with a LasPistol and can shoot it on the run (presumedly assault). Plasma Pistols may cost more or they may always have a chance to kill you and be less accurate.
       
    Made in us
    Preacher of the Emperor





    Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror

     alextroy wrote:
    I know it is a bit of dream, but GW can make the special/heavy weapons of near equal value if they take advantage of the way of writing weapons to make that happen.

    Do you want an AM Infantry Squad to equally value Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Meltaguns, and Plasma Guns? This is the big chance by adjusting the attacks, accuracy, and special rule of the four weapons to make them all advantageous in different, common-enough circumstances.

    Do that successfully and you can just fold the cost of the special weapon(s) into the base cost of the squad. You can do similar things with the sergeant weapon choices. Bolt Pistols hit harder while you get more shots with a LasPistol and can shoot it on the run (presumedly assault). Plasma Pistols may cost more or they may always have a chance to kill you and be less accurate.


    Thats my thoughts. The choices need to be sidegrades of some kind in order for it to work. I think the varying BS will go a long way to help. Plus you can attach special rules to modify it. Maybe plasma has a 5+ to hit because its so volatile on guard. It should all be according to what the unit is supposed to be doing. An anti tank squad should be really good at anti tank and thats it. Anti infantry squads should be blending infantry and not doing well against high armor values. Theres a LOT of potential here and it will add depth to the game. Maybe ill like the versatility and unique abilities of a grenade launcher for my squad because I need a take all comers or maybe it can cause a pinning/ld check, or maybe I need dedicated anti infantry support and take a flamer.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/24 21:33:20


    17,000 points (Valhallan)
    10,000 points
    6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
    Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
    Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
    "Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"

    -Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer 
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: