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.

The new AoS releases have me thinking, are points really necessary in 40k?

Supposedly, points are how you maintain balance in the game. At the same time, there is a common perception that Codexes fit into certain tiers and some are more effective than others based on what you can do with your points. If points do not reflect balance, and some armies have a much tougher time at it than others, do they really serve a purpose?

I would argue the answer is no. The real function of points is to enforce a handicap on some armies while allowing others to thrive. The reason for this may be to encourage people to buy certain armies / models instead of others, but it doesn't seem to be to achieve balance in the game.

Part of the reason I see it this way is that my FLGS has been having 2nd edition and 4th edition a few nights a month for a while now. With some exceptions, you can see how much more balanced those armies are than the ones found in more recent editions.

At the same time, several 7th edition players have simply starting organizing battles around formations and FOC limitations, where they fill up slots without regard to how much something costs. Each side just agrees on the slots that can be taken or the formations that can be used and that's your army. They have some variations like double FOCs, pure formation battles, open field (no formations), cave battles (no flyers), mirror image games, defender (where one side gets fewer slots but can set up outside their deployment zone), and some others.

From what I understand, it's been mixed results but mostly positive compared to vanilla 40k.

So, would love to hear what others think. If you don't mind, mention the army you play when you respond.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The new AoS releases have me thinking, are points really necessary in 40k?

Supposedly, points are how you maintain balance in the game. At the same time, there is a common perception that Codexes fit into certain tiers and some are more effective than others based on what you can do with your points. If points do not reflect balance, and some armies have a much tougher time at it than others, do they really serve a purpose?

I would argue the answer is no. The real function of points is to enforce a handicap on some armies while allowing others to thrive. The reason for this may be to encourage people to buy certain armies / models instead of others, but it doesn't seem to be to achieve balance in the game.

Part of the reason I see it this way is that my FLGS has been having 2nd edition and 4th edition a few nights a month for a while now. With some exceptions, you can see how much more balanced those armies are than the ones found in more recent editions.

At the same time, several 7th edition players have simply starting organizing battles around formations and FOC limitations, where they fill up slots without regard to how much something costs. Each side just agrees on the slots that can be taken or the formations that can be used and that's your army. They have some variations like double FOCs, pure formation battles, open field (no formations), cave battles (no flyers), mirror image games, defender (where one side gets fewer slots but can set up outside their deployment zone), and some others.

From what I understand, it's been mixed results but mostly positive compared to vanilla 40k.

So, would love to hear what others think. If you don't mind, mention the army you play when you respond.

Remove points and you will remove the last semblance of balance that this game has.
Want to face an army of Terminators and Primarchs? Go right ahead and remove them but I will stick with my points values thank you very much.

Will we use wounds instead? Think about it like this: An IK has 6 hull points. A Tactical Squad has 10. Does this make it more worth it to only have IK's?

What do you do with force which do not have formation???? i.e. IG, AS? Or faction with limited formation which could not compete with a Decurion, a demi company or a Wraith host? i.e. Ork, Dark Eldars…?

As long as you have to pay 115 Points for a Deff Dread and can get a wraith knight for 300 - there is no need for points.

And as long as Warhammer is a social game, no one will bring a Primarch and 100 Terminators to fight my 50 Battle sisters. Warhammer requires you to have friends to play with. If you act like an donkey-cave you won't play Warhammer for too long.
This gives you much more balance then the current point costs.
When I wanna have a big robot fight (to honor the Komatsu-MegaBots fight), my friend will bring a single Wraithnight (to represent the Japanese) and I will bring a 9 KillaKans, 2 Deff Dreads and a Mega Dread (to represent the USA). And it will end up being a fair, funny fight. If I he would bring the same number of points, it would be pointless to start the fight at all.

My friend once brought up a good point to me as to why points are good to have, even if some things are too good for their points. Imagine Magic: The Gathering. If there's an OP card, someone can put 4 of that card in their deck. How much of their deck did that take up? 4 cards, same as anything else. In 40k, if someone spammed 4 wraithknights, how much of their army did that take up? Pretty much all of it.

Hence, I'll stick to the points, even though they are far from balanced most of the time. Heck, that's why I'm iffy about trying AoS, since there's no point system.

For any sort of pick up game or competitive game where players are given a near unlimited number of ways to build their army, you need either a points system, or some sort of rigid army building structure of a series of formations that you have to build within for a legal army.

For local, friendly games designed for scenarios, then points don't matter so long as you have the right units for specific scenario X, Y, or Z, where the scenario is the balancing factor. This works well for some historicals and specific sub sets or scenarios within larger games.

Having a game where there are no point values, no method to building an army of roughly equal force other than just 'eye-balling' it, and no myriad of specific scenarios, is pretty weak and terrible game design. Its a cop out of having to actually create something that requires thought or effort. Anyone and their dog can write out a page of rules that says the equivalent of 'measure distances to the models, move as far as this number, roll this many dice in this phase, and remove models if they run out of health'.

So yes, I feel that 40k needs points. I feel that every wargame with even the slightest notion of being used in a pick up, store, club, league, or tournament environment should have some mechanism to create balanced forces, either by points or a more rigid formation system.

But the real question is, what benefit is afforded to a system completely devoid of a balancing mechanism? As far as I can see, none. In a balanced game, you can always decide to have a lopsided fight. You can always decide to ignore the points and do whatever you want. You can always fine tune things now that you have a (hopefully) tested baseline from a group of competent writers. You can always play in a number of environments, from hardcore tournaments where money/prizes are on the line, down to 6 pints in beerhammer.

Its simpler and easier to set up games where you simply ask for a game, then agree on a point value. You both show up with lists of that value and know that you're roughly evenly matched. A system like AoS relies on players using some arbitrary value like wounds to determine a rough equivalent. Anyone with two brain cells can immediately discover why wounds are not a good method of determining how equal forces are.

Yes, I feel that points are necessary. If not, I might as well be playing green army men in the sandbox. I want rules to feel like rules, a game where tactics and thinking matter, where I can design and build a force I like that is both aesthetically pleasing and matches my preferred method of fighting, where I can use the point values to play either super casual with whatever I want, or super competitive with min/maxed lists.

I just can't see a downside to having point values assigned or some sort of balancing mechanism.

*Edit* And I want to make this clear. Do not confuse a bad point system for a good reason to abandon it altogether. A bad point system means there's a need for a good one, of which several games have accomplished.

Just wait for Warhammer 40,000: Age of the Emperor!

Against regular opponents, no. Points are not necessary, you have a better idea of what forces will give you a fun game than the points system can provide.

If you want to have games against irregular opponents and have some semblance of balance (or controlled imbalance... or want to try out new options), I think points are still a very useful mechanic.

And I want to make this clear. Do not confuse a bad point system for a good reason to abandon it altogether. A bad point system means there's a need for a good one, of which several games have accomplished.

Nor do you need - necessarily - Nth degree detail. There is and will always be an argument that unit X, Y, or Z is under- or over-powered, and balancing it tends to unbalance something else.

As a result, whilst points are useful to get a broadly fair fight, going down into the weeds isn't necessary - and let's be fair, arguing that a model is one or two points too expensive is effectively arguing over about 15 points in a 2,000 point game.

That's not much beyond an irrelevant rounding error.

One game which I always liked was a fleet combat game called A Call To Arms - it was a Babylon 5 thing - and the fleet selection was '5 points' - a battleship was 1 point. Cruisers came 2 for a point. Frigates and light cruisers 3 for a point.

Yes, there were differences between different race's ships in how they played - drastically so - but their power was about equal-ish (depending on tactics, the vagarities of dice, etc). Where a unit had options, you could take any of them you wished, because they were options (as in do you want A, B or C, not do you want A, A+, A++) and were allowed for in the unit's power.

It didn't remove the strategy of fleet selection, but it didn't half make the whole affair faster and easier for players who just want to play the damn game.

It's something I wouldn't mind in 40k - a point/unit/whatever you want to call it being a sensible block of units.

So a tactical squad, with whatever weapons you want, or a terminator squa, (but only a 5 man one), or a guard platoon of two squads and a command section, or a big mob of boyz, or a pair of tanks, could all be about equivalent.

 Matthew wrote:
Will we use wounds instead? Think about it like this: An IK has 6 hull points. A Tactical Squad has 10. Does this make it more worth it to only have IK's?

Revenant has 6hp too iirc, sooo.

Points are necessary and yes, they do make for balanced games. The problem isn't with points themselves, it's the deliberate use of them by GW to stimulate sales of newer releases.

eg:
"there's no way we'll sell 10 of these transports to anyone"
"what if we make 'em free?"

Yes, we really do need them!

What you're seeing isn't points being a bad idea, but rather GW just not calculating the right point costs.

"My car is driving like crap because it has a flat tire!


I know, it will drive better with no tires! The flat one is just slowing it down!"

-AoS apologists


The one thing I hope more than anything AoS accomplishes is to cure the community of the ridiculous notion that GW knows better than they do somehow. I hope people get a living point cost set they can tweak and balance and tune based on results and actual math and testing, and I hope then they realize "hey, this would totally work for 40k!!"

The moment Age of Sigmar creeps into 40k I'll be writing the rulebook from scratch and using that for my meta, points included.

Points is the only thing that keeps the game somewhat balanced, aside house rules.

Use every slot instead?
So when you compare 60 scatter bikes to 180 gretchin/60 scouts/60 veteran guardsmen/180 termagants or even 120 guardians, you realise straight away that now that the majority of units are non-viable.
Seth vs a stompa
Tarantula battery vs 3 SM predators
Smashfecker vs Techmarine
Etc etc.
That's not even bringing into account that Inquisition are screwed with their 5 slots and that IG can put 834 models down using just their 6 troops slots (inc commissars, not inc chimeras).

we use points to make lists during the week without having to consult each other in detail about what armies we are making.

points keep balance and for us 40k is a very balanced game at our game size. The points work for us to create a balanced game with minimal free time.

Alos without points how would you do upgrades? Customizing/upgrading is our groups favorite aspect of creating the force.

The idea behind using a point-system is to ensure that both players bring a relatively equal army to face each other with.

The fact that many units are overcosted/undercosted does not mean that we should get rid of the point system completely. Rather we should fix the existing problems within the system we already have.

(Its the whole don't throw the baby out with the bath water thing.)

I think the removal of points is games workshops day of telling us they really don't know how and don't want to make rules anymore.

What if the makers of yhatzee (bit of a stretch, I know) came out and said: "no more rules, we just make dice and cups now.. Go roll whatever you want and make up the game yourselves. "

Well, I would stop playing yhatzee for want of an actual game. Or I would make copies of the old rules and use those.

For a while now games workshop has been showing us that they are really bad at bringing balance to the game, I don't think their current table flipping policy is the right choice... But we will just have to see

So... as chaos. Making squad of 10 TSons or 10 Chosen would be equivalent to making squad of 10 Regular Marine? And Why would you EVER take 10 regular marine if you can take 10 bike? or 10 Terminator?

You take AoS for example... well AoS is really in a bad shape as of now. I watch a couple youtubers and Miniwargaming for example, are having a hard time balancing the game to actually make it enjoyable. After a week or so of playtesting, they put a point price on every unit using some sort of calculation, and like magic, the game became more balance and enjoyable

The real question is: Are redicilously OP formations really necessary?

 DalinCriid wrote:
The real question is: Are redicilously OP formations really necessary?

OP formations? Nah. Formations? Yes. I love formations.

Could formations require a slight point cost? Perhaps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PandaHero wrote:
So... as chaos. Making squad of 10 TSons or 10 Chosen would be equivalent to making squad of 10 Regular Marine? And Why would you EVER take 10 regular marine if you can take 10 bike? or 10 Terminator?

You take AoS for example... well AoS is really in a bad shape as of now. I watch a couple youtubers and Miniwargaming for example, are having a hard time balancing the game to actually make it enjoyable. After a week or so of playtesting, they put a point price on every unit using some sort of calculation, and like magic, the game became more balance and enjoyable

A. Just a side note for Chaos: Their points are so pricey right now, me and my girlfriend were thinking of trying a 25% reduction in price on their units (at least the stupid expensive ones) to see if that helps any. Or, just let her have a 500 point handicap in our games.

B. My thoughts for AoS is to just use the old points value from WHFB, i.e Nagash is 1000 points, Tomb Kings are ~175, ext. Otherwise, I don't know how to even set up a list.

What Blackheart said is absolutely correct.

If you want a fair game in which players have the ability to choose forces to a minute level of detail in order to optimise them to the limit, then a points system is essential.

The funny thing about this thread is that for the most part, everyone agrees that GW does a poor job with the individual points cost of the models they sell (or has ulterior motives for the reasons some models have the points costs they do in the game), yet if I were to suggest we as a community "fix" some of the ridiculous oversights or imbalances, you'd say "we cannot alter the point values, for GW is the grand arbiter of all that is 40k balance related decisions" (or something to that effect).

So, for example, if I said a Wraithknight should be 375pts base and a possessed chaos space marine should be 22pts per model, I'd be saying something almost everyone would agree with (maybe not the exact number, but everyone agrees that the WK is too cheap and that possessed are too expensive for their impact on the table), but would be burned at the stake for suggesting the points change. Sure, I know...who am I, right? Well...it shouldn't be up to me, but if everyone agrees that GW are idiots when it comes to point costs, it shouldn't be totally taboo for SOMEONE out there to take a stab at it and have the community respect their decisions.

When you put Space Marine scouts next to blood Angels scouts the answer is kind of obvious.

Since Necrons the idea of balance has been thrown out of the window entirely. Points cost are a farce and Im starting to come around on the idea of AoS, which doesn't even pretend.

I like AoS, been playing it more then 40k recently.
Its more enjoyable right now and feels a bit more open and engaging with the rules as is.

That being said 40k needs points limits. Otherwise it would be one big shitshow

Business wise, removing points will also remove the remaining players that actually care about balance. Narrowing their customer base isn't a good move when their revenue is already declining.

A. Just a side note for Chaos: Their points are so pricey right now, me and my girlfriend were thinking of trying a 25% reduction in price on their units (at least the stupid expensive ones) to see if that helps any. Or, just let her have a 500 point handicap in our games.

You totally misunderstood my points. I took chaos because I have it in mind as of now. The points is: You can't base a system on wounds or warscroll. Because if you do, some unit become irrelevant. Why would I field Gretchin if I can field a boy? Why would I field a Tactical Marine if I can field a Biker?

Wounds and model count are not the only factor in the equation. So you need to take every stat into account. Hence, a point cost.

The bad thing about how GW uses the points is that they will use the amount of points a model costs in a game to set the price for the model, they don't base the actual price on how much it costs to make the model. That's why independent characters cost so much more than a squad of space marines.


Cheers, C66

Remember when GW tried to make a hellbrute more balanced in their FaQ when they reduced its price by 5pts?
It feels like a long list memory that.