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.

If armies swell with points changes the natural thing to do is reduce the limit. 2k is a weird standard i can remember in the UK 1500 used to be fairly normal years ago. I'v not played a 1000-1500pt game in years though, does anyone do this on the regular? how does the game play?

Not Online!!! wrote:
agree, not only is that absurd imo, but it also steps on a lot of units toes, like dreadnoughts? Why field a hellbrute, or decimator, or any other such thing if i can just throw down a cheap wardog and call it a day.

In the case of Loyalists, taking an Armiger would cost you your Doctrines. For Chaos there doesn't seem to be an obvious downside.

 Latro_ wrote:
If armies swell with points changes the natural thing to do is reduce the limit. 2k is a weird standard i can remember in the UK 1500 used to be fairly normal years ago. I'v not played a 1000-1500pt game in years though, does anyone do this on the regular? how does the game play?

1000 feels light. 1500 is like one unit shy of how 1750 used to feel in 7th.

I think I share the opinions of many here. That continually decreasing points values isn't a good solution to the problem. Something to keep in mind, though. Games Workshop aren't going to publish a book that mostly increases the points costs of a bunch of units, because players aren't going to be as enthused to buy a book that makes their armies much worse. It just feels bad to the player. Now, I don't actually play any factions that are likely to be getting nerfed anytime soon, but I think increasing the power of some of the units that are lacklustre (especially the elites like Terminators) would be a lot better for the game than their current solution.

Darsath wrote:
I think I share the opinions of many here. That continually decreasing points values isn't a good solution to the problem. Something to keep in mind, though. Games Workshop aren't going to publish a book that mostly increases the points costs of a bunch of units, because players aren't going to be as enthused to buy a book that makes their armies much worse. It just feels bad to the player. Now, I don't actually play any factions that are likely to be getting nerfed anytime soon, but I think increasing the power of some of the units that are lacklustre (especially the elites like Terminators) would be a lot better for the game than their current solution.

But, then they will just be way to plain killy! Oh the horror, we spent so many million hours painting my mini plastic men only too lose 7/8 of them in the first turn! Oh the humanity!

 Apple Peel wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think I share the opinions of many here. That continually decreasing points values isn't a good solution to the problem. Something to keep in mind, though. Games Workshop aren't going to publish a book that mostly increases the points costs of a bunch of units, because players aren't going to be as enthused to buy a book that makes their armies much worse. It just feels bad to the player. Now, I don't actually play any factions that are likely to be getting nerfed anytime soon, but I think increasing the power of some of the units that are lacklustre (especially the elites like Terminators) would be a lot better for the game than their current solution.

But, then they will just be way to plain killy! Oh the horror, we spent so many million hours painting my mini plastic men only too lose 7/8 of them in the first turn! Oh the humanity!

I mean, yeah, the lethality of the game at the moment is actually bad, contrary to your sarcasm. But I never said those unique rules had to be specifically in increasing offensive output. They could be simple things like T5 terminators, or AP reduction on Land Raiders.

 Ordana wrote:
Constantly pushing points down is shrinking the design space more and more.

A marine is 12 (with its bucket of special rules now), a Guardsman is 4 (should be 5) and everything in between has to fit in there.
There simply isn't going to be room left for nuance.

Armigers getting into the point territory of Dreadnoughts.

Stop making everything that is bad cheaper and make the good stuff more expensive instead. Give yourself room to design in ffs...

Besides just design and variety, it's absolutely terrible from a gameplay perspective. The table doesn't need to be cluttered with even more models.

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:

Besides just design and variety, it's absolutely terrible from a gameplay perspective. The table doesn't need to be cluttered with even more models.

Play at lower point limit then.

 Crimson wrote:

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:

Besides just design and variety, it's absolutely terrible from a gameplay perspective. The table doesn't need to be cluttered with even more models.

Play at lower point limit then.

I love to, and often do (to answer the question above, 1500 is a great size; 1600-1650 is probably about perfect in my opinion!); but whenever I go to a tournament, it's back to the ITC standard 2000 that everyone in the USA runs because they're afraid of being different from ITC.

I complain about ITC's house rules and points levels a lot, but don't get me wrong -- I love them, they're really nice guys and I love what they've done in creating an international league. Just would prefer less differentiation from 40K and lower points levels.

V

 Crimson wrote:

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:

Besides just design and variety, it's absolutely terrible from a gameplay perspective. The table doesn't need to be cluttered with even more models.

Play at lower point limit then.

Oh look, useless and unsolicited advice

It's an inherent flaw in their design to leave narrative play (IE GW's preferred method to play their games) untouched from revision to revision. Notice they never change power levels until a new codex comes out.

CA is purely to make the matched play people stop complaining and buy models like people did when AOS came out with no rules, no points and no purpose.

Not to say its a bad thing, but it's an obvious strategy which limits what they can actually do in between codex releases (beyond errata).

 Kirasu wrote:
It's an inherent flaw in their design to leave narrative play (IE GW's preferred method to play their games) untouched from revision to revision. Notice they never change power levels until a new codex comes out.

CA is purely to make the matched play people stop complaining and buy models like people did when AOS came out with no rules, no points and no purpose.

Not to say its a bad thing, but it's an obvious strategy which limits what they can actually do in between codex releases (beyond errata).

That second paragraph doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty sure what you meant to say was '...stop complaining like people did when AoS came out with no points(one clause), and buy models(instead)'. The way you've written it is that people stopped complaining and bought models when sigmar was released and that is exactly the opposite of what actually happened. People started complaining and burned models.

And CA doesn't have to be whatever dystopian thing you failed to properly communicate you think it is. The general's handbook in AoS curbs the most powerful lists while pumping up some underused options pretty consistently, with no significant change to the overall size of armies

The problem isn't GW's business strategy, or some conspiracy theory about constantly shrinking armies or lizard people or whatever thing dakka thinks it is today.

The problem is that GW's 40k rules team just straight up is not as good as the team that does AoS and their reduced level of competence shows constantly.

Look at Miracle Dice vs. Destiny Dice. The Destiny Dice system is lightweight, powerful, thematic, and written in such a way that there is 0 confusion as to how it works. The Miracle Dice system is, despite being basically the exact same system, is cumbersome, clunky, less useful than it appears, and written in such a way that's impossible to be 100% sure of how exactly it works. If the weaker of the two interpretations of the rule turns out to be the correct one, it would also fail to be impactful, let alone powerful.

If you read both rules side by side, you'd be forgiven for thinking the Sister's rule was written well before the Tzeentch one.

Has it actually been officially confirmed that two completely different teams look after 40k/AoS?

 Ordana wrote:
Constantly pushing points down is shrinking the design space more and more.

A marine is 12 (with its bucket of special rules now), a Guardsman is 4 (should be 5) and everything in between has to fit in there.
There simply isn't going to be room left for nuance.

Armigers getting into the point territory of Dreadnoughts.

Stop making everything that is bad cheaper and make the good stuff more expensive instead. Give yourself room to design in ffs...

Ahem. They are.

The almighty, all-powerful grot is going up in points.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Has it actually been officially confirmed that two completely different teams look after 40k/AoS?

No. Same team. The office isn’t that large. There‘s the Specialist Game Team and the „Main“ Team. The latter is about 5 to 8 people at the core (for everything 40K, AoS, Warcry, etc..) with a „flexible Reserve“ or things like Lore writers (e.g. Phil Kelly) also contributing to rules and/or providing input.

 Karhedron wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
agree, not only is that absurd imo, but it also steps on a lot of units toes, like dreadnoughts? Why field a hellbrute, or decimator, or any other such thing if i can just throw down a cheap wardog and call it a day.

In the case of Loyalists, taking an Armiger would cost you your Doctrines. For Chaos there doesn't seem to be an obvious downside.

Regardless that is bad.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Has it actually been officially confirmed that two completely different teams look after 40k/AoS?

No. Same team. The office isn’t that large. There‘s the Specialist Game Team and the „Main“ Team. The latter is about 5 to 8 people at the core (for everything 40K, AoS, Warcry, etc..) with a „flexible Reserve“ or things like Lore writers (e.g. Phil Kelly) also contributing to rules and/or providing input.

Are you sure about that? In the Podcasts they talk about several studios (40k, AoS, Boxed Games)

Waaaghbert wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Has it actually been officially confirmed that two completely different teams look after 40k/AoS?

No. Same team. The office isn’t that large. There‘s the Specialist Game Team and the „Main“ Team. The latter is about 5 to 8 people at the core (for everything 40K, AoS, Warcry, etc..) with a „flexible Reserve“ or things like Lore writers (e.g. Phil Kelly) also contributing to rules and/or providing input.

Are you sure about that? In the Podcasts they talk about several studios (40k, AoS, Boxed Games)

I am sure as of late 7th, early 8th.

They might have re-organized in the last 24 months or so, though they didn’t hire dozens of rules developers suddenly. Did they say those studios were rules? Or also lore or even miniatures?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Has it actually been officially confirmed that two completely different teams look after 40k/AoS?

No. Same team. The office isn’t that large. There‘s the Specialist Game Team and the „Main“ Team. The latter is about 5 to 8 people at the core (for everything 40K, AoS, Warcry, etc..) with a „flexible Reserve“ or things like Lore writers (e.g. Phil Kelly) also contributing to rules and/or providing input.

Are you sure about that? In the Podcasts they talk about several studios (40k, AoS, Boxed Games)

I am sure as of late 7th, early 8th.

They might have re-organized in the last 24 months or so, though they didn’t hire dozens of rules developers suddenly. Did they say those studios were rules? Or also lore or even miniatures?

I think it is rules. And it is what they called a "recent development" They talk about it in Episode 19 of their Stormcast Podcast http://stormcastpodcast.com/stormcast-episode-19-david-sanders

It is actually three teams now. 40k, AOS and boxed games which covers underworlds, Warhammer quest etc.
They have completely seperate teams, different rules writers - 3 in each team, different background writers, different layout designers , editors, photographers etc.
The miniatures design team still works on everything and Phil Kelly is involved with both settings but everything else is seperate.
According to the interviews the change was made at the end of last year so I'm not sure how many things made under new system have come out.

 Ordana wrote:


Stop making everything that is bad cheaper and make the good stuff more expensive instead. Give yourself room to design in ffs...

That would mean less models needed. Ain't happening.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Stop making everything that is bad cheaper and make the good stuff more expensive instead. Give yourself room to design in ffs...

That would mean less models needed. Ain't happening.

Actually I think GW is terrified of the bad press cycles that large companies often get when they nerf someones holy cow. For them to commit to a serious nerf it has to be something with as much public support as the changes to castelants and/or Ynnari, both of which took way too long to get in place.

 Grimgold wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Stop making everything that is bad cheaper and make the good stuff more expensive instead. Give yourself room to design in ffs...

That would mean less models needed. Ain't happening.

Actually I think GW is terrified of the bad press cycles that large companies often get when they nerf someones holy cow. For them to commit to a serious nerf it has to be something with as much public support as the changes to castelants and/or Ynnari, both of which took way too long to get in place.

Tbf, that could be an issue, however gw could have also taken a more proactive stance aswell, considering how tone deaf they are sometimes.

Well, they also could publish articles to go with their reasoning for their nerfs, like many big companies do. This tends to lessen the impact of the drama surrounding nerfs - and there will always be some people who will post about how [company] has ruined their game.

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, they also could publish articles to go with their reasoning for their nerfs, like many big companies do. This tends to lessen the impact of the drama surrounding nerfs - and there will always be some people who will post about how [company] has ruined their game.

Aye, i'd like them to explain their reasoning aswell, especially the one of the last ca

 Ordana wrote:


Stop making everything that is bad cheaper and make the good stuff more expensive instead. Give yourself room to design in ffs...

all they need to do, is multiply ALL point values by 10 (or even 100) - and boom - there is magically more room for design choices.

 Chaphazar wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


Stop making everything that is bad cheaper and make the good stuff more expensive instead. Give yourself room to design in ffs...

all they need to do, is multiply ALL point values by 10 (or even 100) - and boom - there is magically more room for design choices.

2-3 times allready would do the trick.

2 times is enough

basic Marines at 20/25 points and there is enough design space to adjust everything else

also the army size at 2000 points will fit again on a 6x4 table

 kodos wrote:
2 times is enough

basic Marines at 20/25 points and there is enough design space to adjust everything else

also the army size at 2000 points will fit again on a 6x4 table

except we wouldn't be playing 2k but 4k. Or knowing GW they would be promoting 5k and players like lemmings follow it as usual.

ERJAK wrote:
Look at Miracle Dice vs. Destiny Dice. The Destiny Dice system is lightweight, powerful, thematic, and written in such a way that there is 0 confusion as to how it works. The Miracle Dice system is, despite being basically the exact same system, is cumbersome, clunky, less useful than it appears, and written in such a way that's impossible to be 100% sure of how exactly it works. If the weaker of the two interpretations of the rule turns out to be the correct one, it would also fail to be impactful, let alone powerful.

If you read both rules side by side, you'd be forgiven for thinking the Sister's rule was written well before the Tzeentch one.

What are the differences? How do each one work exactly?